from an actually practical side of view, building a mosque on the ruins of the world trade centers is practically asking to be mauled by angry new yorkers
ok, so it's not point blank ON it, but the point is still that muslims build mosques on land they claim to conquer. All evidence points to that manhattan was not conquered by them, so building one would only get a troupe of angry new yorkers
just like with christians, the muslims need to see that they are not the only people in the world and something is not right just because they think so as well as that they are not untouchable and can't get away with everything
but I thought they wanted to build it on the ruins because fox news cited 'still searching the ruins' as the excuse to delay this. If the mosque isn't planned to be built on the site, then how does that excuse hold ANY ground?
not just stupidity. they are synonymous with LYING! And they have lied with their judge judy-0esque skit of bringing atheists onto the site and proceed to bash on them only to get owned in return. They exaggerated the statistic of the christian demographic in the US
Seriously, they should have exaggerated something more obscure or not easily accessible. It's amazing how much a wiki search can do
I always think "if Christians dont want religious buildings at sites of terrorism, there would be very few churches in many places in the world." Complete hypocrites
You should change your name to KingCommonSense. It is amazingly stupefying how fox news continues with mere media theater to simply get ratings. Keep up the great work.
@DrinkToIreland Yes, imagine that...they wanted to build their COMMUNITY center in a district of New York where there were LOTS OF PEOPLE. Can you believe that? Why couldn't they just build it out in the country where no one lives!?
Do you see why even if you are right that it doesn't change the FACT that it's a LEGALLY purchased plot of land where they plan to build a LEGAL building according to zoning codes? It's none of your business...why do you care?
@KingHeathen i think because the community doesnt want it and thats their views there is going to be alot of crime there the building might be destroyed by some christian zealot (ps i'm a christian) its just not going to end well
@KingHeathen I really understand your point of view, but I can understand why people are offended by the building of the mosque in this location. The 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of Islam (albeit the attacks were not "trully Islamic" and certainly were not representative of the majority of Muslims.) Because the attacks were carried out in the name of Islam, people find it insensitive and offensive to build something representing Islam; a mosque; so close.
I'm confused. I thought the plan was to convert the existing (old) Burlington Coat Factory building into an Islamic Community Center, not take it down and rebuild.
Faux News is an embarrassment to America, just as much as Fundies and YEC's.
If Muslims wanted to build a mural honouring Osama and mocking 9/11 in Park 51, they should be able to. People don't have the right not to be offended. Don't like it, build something they won't like next to it.
I believe your referring to Timothy Brown. When the case was brought up, Judge Paul G. Feinman said that Brown lacked any special standing on the particular fate of the building. This got Fox News' panties in a bunch, because he claimed to be a firefighter who worked on 9/11.
@KingHeathen At my school we had to debate this. I was on the side favoring it. Our side was the only one that brought intelligent elements to the table. The other team kept bringing up the point that it is in 'victory'. Needless to say, we lost. When I asked others that were on the favoring side, they said they lost too, even when they clearly brought intelligent points.
I also hated the thought of them with the stereotype of the Chinese guy and the flick that was annoying and is just purely offensive but hey if it were Christian............I'm just going to call them hypocrites and leave it at that and yeah as Victoria says that is bloody hilarious
please tell me that you are in the south= to have fox news playing in an office setting as if it's no big deal... because i live in the south too.. and playing fox news in restaurants, doctor's offices etc is considered no big deal around here. i plan on moving up north to escape the idiots around here. but if you were up north and they were playing that crap in the waiting room, i'm screwed
@AtheistAddiction Come up north to escape the idiots? We have our own breed of idiots up here. The self-hating leftist elitist idiots. You know, the kind that say America is evil, save the environment, and stop the evil corporations, just dont touch my 15,000 square foot mansion and my BMW 750i.
I recently got back from a two-week trip to New York. While I was there I went to downtown Manhattan and I saw Ground Zero several times. Let me tell you, if every landmark that was covered in dust by the 9/11 attacks had to be preserved due to their "historical significance", they might as well make the twenty or so blocks around the Freedom Tower the worlds biggest museum.
As far as this video goes: you totally missed the point. This isnt about just the fact that theyre biggots that dont want muslims there. Its about stopping the adherants of an ideology from plopping another victory mosque on the site of conquest. There have been thousands built in the ongoing Islamic jihad. This is par for the course with Islam. You attack in a real big way to assert your power, and then move forward with Dawah to get them to convert. If they dont, then you wage war.
If the mosque is built, it will send the message to the rest of the Islamic world that Islam now has a beach head in the "great satan", and the violence will escalate as they now will think victory is in sight. The very notions of why they are putting this thing there are contradictory to the constitution. As understood in islam, one of the mosques functions is to serve as a base of operations in the ongoing Jihad. All in all its just a really bad idea to let them move forward.
To understand why the G0 mosque shouldnt be built, you need to know what Islam really is. In its strictest sense, its a religion, but pragmatically, its a political ideology. The G0M is not being built as a house of worship. Instead its being built to assert the dominance of Islam over our culture and society. This is purely a political move by Islamists who want to see our way of life destroyed.
Actually an International House of Pancakes would be insensitive to the disaster of Sept. 11 where the buildings collapsed rapidly due to the pancaking effect of the top floors. And I think we all know it'd be a Victory Denny's.
on the basis of that idea all new construction in New York should cease immediately. Debris, in multiple forms, was all over the city and communities outside NYC.
debri!?! wtf! either way it should be illegal to create any more religious institutions. i shit you not living in daytona fl, i seriously cant pass one block without seeing a church, synagogue, mosque, or mcdonalds, americas new favorite religion
I live in NY and walked past the same building every day last year to get to work. It was ridiculous the amount of security and protesters were lined up outside that building. On the bright side I did encounter some counter protesters who restored my faith in humanity.
@thatamazinggeek A foothold? Do you have any idea how many churches there are JUST on the street where I live? Do you really think that ONE mosque is going to do anything? Just admit that you are a religious bigot and be done with it...don't disguise it in this fear mongering bullshit that we all see straight through!
@nishbrown yes! You should get her to apply to the state of New York for money for "historical maintenance" as she gets older to preserve her historic state!
Oh, and she has to walk around with the debris on her head...for historical purposes.
so your saying another mosque should never be built in america again? that these people shouldnt be allowed in your country? good to see youre against the constitution as well.
we have laws in this country that stop people passing or vetoing laws based on religion. until someone gets into a position of significant power advocating for america to be a more islamic nation, there is no problem.
@KingHeathen Maybe next time make sure the kids are really really loud--help drown out the sound" ok kids you get to be really loud on this trip to the dr. so dad doesn't have to hear the crap on the tv just this one time ok"
Go to another orthodontist. If a pharmacy has that crap playing on a TV I let 'em know that I don't give business to assholes that have that crap on.
I don't know if changing orthodontists would be doable for you, but if it is... or at least you can let them know that you don't take kindly to Fox Propaganda news.
At least it looks like the corrupt Murdoch will be brought to justice soon...the wholesale misinformation campaign from FOX News has done permanent damage in our nation
@Domzdream good thing its not illegal not to have tact. otherwise we would have to get rid of the ground zero strip club and the shinto shrine next to pearl harbor.
WHy or how people cannot get this argument is beyond me. It's like (like me who are opposed to this act) speak about apples, and the opposition continues about cabbages and potatoes.
It would make these people look less stupid, maybe more of an asshole if they just admitted that they don't want the mosque there because they are a rascist douchebag.
I've noticed that. All these doctors, dentists offices, dmv's, all have Fox news and their propaganda blaring all day long. As if it isn't bad enough you have to go see the doctor or the dentist, and be punished with this shit. As far as the "historic" building, it just fucking amazes me what some people consider to be newsworthy, or a good reason to take something to court.
Don't get me wrong, I think religion is stupid. I think Islam is stupid (and Christianity, and Judaism, and *list denomination here*). But what's even more stupid than religion is citing a piece of fallen debris as a reason for imposing on someone's right to freely, peacefully practice their own religion. Now THAT requires a completely different view of stupidity altogether.
The damn dentist I go to plays faux news on the tv, too, and the place where I work. I'm absolutely amazed this many people watch it in a non ironic fashion.
Oh an I suppose anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot right? There is enuf genuine non psycho info out there for an intelligent person to realize that islam likes to overlook thier conquests with mosques. its a fact. In addition they claimed it WASNT a mosque but a communty center. Sorry as far as im concerned its a training ground for religious zealots in midtown. Thats f'd up man. If you dont see that then you are too distant from the issue. Of course what do I know-I just live here right?
Hey I like your stuff and I listen to your views but you dont live in NY and you obviously dont understand the purpose of that Nazi house or mosque - whatever. The fact is that no mosque has any business overlooking the destruction of those buildings. Obviously the guy is trying to find a loophole to get his actual goal accomplished. Are you that stupid that you dont know that? I mean who is the dumbass here? Its not about being a bigot its about you being really stupid. I would love an IHOP btw
@mucephi1 I don't care if you live IN the mosque...your sadly mistaken here if you think that ANY of that has ANYTHING to do with their LEGAL purchase of land to build a LEGAL building on that land REGARDLESS of what's BLOCKS AWAY! I have an older video on this...how far away IS far enough away in your opinion if this spot isn't good enough for you...OH, and do you have a problem with the STRIP CLUB that is also "overlooking" it? That land isn't sacred. Stop treating it as such.
@KingHeathen I never said the ground is sacred. It might not mean anything to you and it might not mean anything to moderate muslims (whatever they are), but it does matter symbolicly to the extremists that did the attacking and are now building a monument to thier triumph. One that will ALWAYS be there. A moderate wouldnt mind moving the location but they are NOT moderate and thier intention is to cause insult. If it means something to them - it should mean something to you too. It does to me.
@mucephi1 What are you basing your claims that "a moderate wouldn't moving the location", and, "they are NOT moderate", and that, "their intention is to cause insult", on? I've heard this claim often, yet never once have I heard any evidence whatsoever to support any of those (or similar) claims.
@KingHeathen Intent is everything. If I legaly buy a plot and build a park statue of a man facing west-you wouldnt care -who would. Just like I dont care if they build a building. If on the other hand you find out that the statue was built because I wanted to glorify the killing of the native americans by the white man you might be offended. You might not want it. Why? Because my intention is offensive to you. A person with a red/black armband is legal and decorative-till you know they are nazis
@mucephi1 Just because something is offensive does not make it illegal. The First Amendment guarantees that someone can't be silenced just because others do not like the message.
If that weren't the case, anything the Muslims found offensive could also be banned...not just things you find offensive.
@mucephi1 Believe it or not but people CAN wear swastika's. It's not illegal to proclaim your political stance and it's also not illegal to say you want to kill all jews. Freedom of speech. Dosn't matter at all if anybody or even the majority of the people don't like that skinhead because of freedom of speech it is not illegal.
@mucephi1 That's where you are completely wrong. If you put up your statue and it offended me...I might think you are an asshole...but I CAN NOT stop your LEGAL RIGHT to build it (unless it violates some type of ordinance which IN THIS CASE it does not.) You lose this argument in every direction you try it. Legal purchase...legal building....deal with it. If you are offended, it's YOUR problem.
A 150 year old building deserves to be preserved, period. I now live in a place where almost nothing is older than 1950, and it's ugly as hell. And if you take a look at the new design, it looks like a modernist's wet dream - the usual white crap with unsymmetric polygonal windows because it's cool like that.
Also, the FREAKING LANDING GEAR fell on the building...not "some debris".
Nothing precludes the OLD building being used as a mosque, however.
@Rationalific The building is damaged. It was a "Burlington Coat Factory" store prior to the purchase...you want to keep that? Should the people that legal purchased and now OWN that land be forced to keep the building YOU want? And I guarantee you that we would have never heard anything about it if they were tearing it down to build a McDonald's.
And what does it being "landing gear" matter? Are people going to buy tickets to see where the landing gear fell? NO!
@KingHeathen The fact that it was a "Burlington Coat Factory" prior to the purchase doesn't take away from anything whatsoever. Because before that, it was something else. My point is that I don't like the destruction of history, especially history that would have remained standing if not for the largest attack ever on U.S. soil.
Hiroshima has a preserved ruin. It's the building closest to the Atomic bomb site that wasn't completely destroyed. Get this! It's claim to fame IS the bombing!
@Rationalific Why does your opinion on what period of architecture looks best matter in this scenario? If someone else thinks that only wooden structures are aesthetically pleasing should it be illegal to tear any down and put up anything with a steal or brick construction basis? It doesn't work that way, and there's good reason for that. One person's mere opinion on aesthetics (or even a large number thereof) should not be enough to impede the legal rights of property owners for their own land.
@GrapplingIgnorance The thing is, 150+ year old buildings should be preserved by law. There are so few around, particularly outside of Europe, and there's so much other stuff (a lot of it crap, in my opinion...you have yours) that has no aesthetic value at all. I don't think a Denny's or faceless office park will ever be on the UNESCO World Heritage Site list. The fact is, we are throwing away our history piece by piece. That might be OK with you, but all I'm saying is I don't like it.
@Rationalific Exactly. ALL you're saying is that you don't like it, & therefore it should be illegal. The law's job isn't to prevent things you don't like from happening. History cannot be "thrown away" it can only be forgotten. Keeping something around just because it's old and attempting to preserve it for historic value JUST because it's old crosses the concept of historical value into being an architectural pack rat. If nothing of historic significance happened there, it's expendable.
@GrapplingIgnorance The "Law's" job, specifically, is to prevent events that a given society does not like happening. For instance, US law guards US citizens against "cruel and unusual" punishment. This is not the case elsewhere. The "Law" can never foresee all circumstances that a given society would deem wrong.
@GrapplingIgnorance The fallacy in your argument is thinking only one person is involved. The law must take into account what a large group of people do want. This is called a referendum. And there certainly is a referendum occurring here. Rarely, and I mean rarely do I find myself on the same side as Fox News, but on this one, I have to agree with them. Far too many people, with valid reason, do not want to see this mosque built. And Rauf, himself, doesn't help matters.
@Exmech2 Actually, when creating a law we shouldn't consider the majority, we should consider if it's done for the right reason. If there was a law passed in this country stating that atheists cannot run for president because they don't have moral guidance, that law would get a massive popular vote. Does that mean that the atheist minority is just SOL because they aren't a majority? The premise of majority ruling is absurd.
@GrapplingIgnorance Yes. I agree. AND when the majority has spoken, we need take careful notice of the referendum, and give good consideration to what brings a large group of people together on a particular subject. The City of London would never allow a "Luftwaffe Bomber Pilots Memorial" in Trafalgar Square, whether the majority were fine with it or not. BTW... the law you mentioned would never pass constitutional muster, laws like that have already been shot down.
@Exmech2 It was a hypothetical example, which served its purpose. Such a law would obviously be unconstitutional, but the same example can be extended to state that a proposal to amend the constitution to honor Christianity would pass according to a USA national vote as well- that doesn't mean it's a smart amendment or one that would/should practically pass.
@GrapplingIgnorance Actually, your "hypothetical" law was very real (Torcaso v. Watkins). I'm amazed that while so many can sympathize with a Native American protest against a church being built on what was once "Sacred Ground", such as the Mi-Wuk v Vacaville City Council, yet, when a large group of Americans protest against an elementarily similar event, these Americans are viewed as crackpots and racists.
@GrapplingIgnorance Part 1: Who are you to tell people what is "historically significant"? If there's an old ski lodge that hosted a few celebrities over the years, but nothing really significant happened, but was in use for 150 years and it occupies a stunning site in the mountains, should we tear it down and build a Wal-Mart? People go to places such as Paris and Prague not just to see one building ("the Eiffel Tower", etc) but to "take in" the historic character of everything.
@GrapplingIgnorance Part 2: If you don't like the law preserving historical places with no historical significance that lives up to your personal standard, you will be sad to know that most countries in the world have such laws. These laws, such as ones in Singapore protecting rows of old shophouses from the demolition block, to ones in hundreds of other countries protecting numerous areas. Protecting one famous shophouse is not enough, because you can't get the "feel" of the place without many.
@GrapplingIgnorance Part 3: How do societies make laws? They say, "I don't like it and therefore it should be illegal." That doesn't mean that the preferences behind those laws are always just, but to think that laws are made any other way would be astoundingly naive. So of course I think that there should be laws for things that I think are right...and some of those laws exist. Zoning codes, etc.
I already said that a Mosque could legally be built, so stop your hissy fit, already.
@Rationalific I have no personal standard for what should be kept up based on "historical value." I honestly couldn't care less if the Eiffel tower was bulldozed to be replaced by something its community considered more useful, or if the community sold it to someone who decided to tear it down. Claiming that other countries have national laws that fit your standard does nothing to convince me that mine should. Societies make laws based on congressional votes, not individual complaints.
@GrapplingIgnorance I have yet to find any point that you make. Am I the ruler of the world? No. Do I make the rules? No. Can I give my opinion? Yes. What happens when the vast majority of people give their opinion and leaders listen? Laws are enacted, changed, or done away with. What happens when a few people give their opinion and leaders don't listen? Laws remain the same. What, exactly is your point?
I gave an opinion. I'm not chaining myself to the demolition site. SO WHAT'S IT TO YOU?!
Perhaps if you stop getting so touchy & just focus on rationality you'll see my points. You sated "The thing is, 150+ year old buildings should be preserved by law." You can have that opinion, yes. And other people can explain why that opinion makes little to no sense. It's up to you to explain WHY laws should get involved to preserve old buildings just because they're old. I take the stance of remembering history, but living in the present and building for the future. Makes sense to me.
@GrapplingIgnorance I think we have come to an understanding. If the world were made up of people like me, we would preserve our history. We'd have laws to that effect. If the world were made up of people like you, we'd let property owners do whatever they want to their property, without regards to anything else. It seems that the actual culture and laws are somewhere between our two extremes. Neither of us can change that by ourselves right now. So things will happen that we don't like.
@Rationalific Not quite. Nothing's actually happening that I don't like. People are free to build their "mosque" on the property they own, just as the community wanted, and the fact that it had been and old building, and that landing gear had fallen there are doing nothing to stop that, just as they shouldn't. The only thing happening that I don't like is the very complaint that KingHeathen is making wherein Fox news attempts to construct a mountain from a molehill to say the least.
@GrapplingIgnorance Sure, I admit... In this case, things are happening that I don't like, but which you don't mind. In this case, you're right. But since some great cities such as Florence, Venice, Prague, and Budapest - with strict preservation laws - haven't been gutted by greedy developers and an ignorant population that advocates the superiority of monetary transactions above everything else, I figure that's gotta irk you. Or maybe you're just opinion-less, except when you reply to me.
So let me get this straight, so if Hitler's house exploded, and a piece of the debris fell on top of some shack....that would make that shack a historical shack? That seems pretty retarded. Does it matter what seize of debris? And also, wouldnt that make EVERY single place, including the food stands around the area that were hit by debris historical??? So if a taco stand was hit by debris, ash...therefor if someone wanted to build a walmart, they couldnt?
So technically, you couldnt build ANYTHING around that area, it would be ALL historic, other wise it's just special pleading, making a special exception. Yeah, it's very obvious that it's just bigotry when you are just grabbing at straws.
If they preserved everything in New York debris fell on, then they would have had to abandon the entire area, everything that was touched by the dust cloud.
We had a campaign to save an old railway station where I lived before - the reason given for wanting to save it was that it had a "unique" drainage system that no-one knew about until the developers who were disliked intensely wanted to pull down the building - it was a bit of fitting the data to the theory like the Park 51 project.
@johncrwarner Some buildings should be preserved whole. Some buildings should be partially preserved, with magnificent architect designed construction fitted carefully and respectfully around the remaining elements, and some should be dismantled brick by brick and never mentioned again.
I agree - and standards for what should be pulled down and what should be kept will vary from time to time. The "part of the sacred land that is the 9/11 site" is a back story and they would not object to anything else except a islamic cultural centre in this location.
Fox News is owned by Murdoch and given the current shit storm surrounding him I'm sure their just bringing this up to try and get peoples thoughts away from the hacking of dead childrens phones
@Coughlan616 The Ground Zero Mosque is the Newscorp equivalent of jingling keys. Such distractions ALWAYS crop up whenever there is a rightwing scandal.
It is really hard to find a public place where Fox news is not the station playing around here (well except during football season lol). I was rather ecstatic a couple weeks ago when my gf and I went somewhere and they had on a different news channel lol.
they're going ahead with it?! but i was planning a trip to go see that building and show my family "yup.. that's where some debris fell.. amazing right? soooo historic.."
"Debris fell on it" *blinks* I had to do a double take when I heard that. That's so silly. I mean if they're going to argue for something it'd be nice if they at least came up with somewhat logical reasons for their argument. "Debris fell on it" Yeah and debris falls on my house every year that we get hit by a hurricane, doesn't make my house a historical landmark.
@SiriusMined They call it a mosque because it has a prayer room in it.
But by THAT definition, every building with an islamic prayer room is a mosque, every university, every office block, the Pentagon, Congress, and EVEN THE TWIN TOWERS THEMSELVES.
I will take ESPN over FOX News anyday.
connerjd 2 months ago
Here's an interesting quote: "You went from being crazy like a fox to being crazy as Fox News!"
Justinfh2point0 5 months ago
KingofHeathen, I couldn't agree with you more.
To use those bigots' logics there shouldn't be an American embassy in Japan because of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
FootSomeGuy 5 months ago
@FootSomeGuy YES! Thank you! That's exactly what I was getting at but didn't think to put it that way!
KingHeathen 2 months ago
from an actually practical side of view, building a mosque on the ruins of the world trade centers is practically asking to be mauled by angry new yorkers
infernalone666 6 months ago
@infernalone666 Sure...except that it isn't ON The ruins...it's barely in walking distance.
KingHeathen 2 months ago
@KingHeathen
ok, so it's not point blank ON it, but the point is still that muslims build mosques on land they claim to conquer. All evidence points to that manhattan was not conquered by them, so building one would only get a troupe of angry new yorkers
just like with christians, the muslims need to see that they are not the only people in the world and something is not right just because they think so as well as that they are not untouchable and can't get away with everything
infernalone666 2 months ago
@KingHeathen
but I thought they wanted to build it on the ruins because fox news cited 'still searching the ruins' as the excuse to delay this. If the mosque isn't planned to be built on the site, then how does that excuse hold ANY ground?
infernalone666 2 months ago
FOX News is synonomous with stupidity.
connerjd 7 months ago
@connerjd
not just stupidity. they are synonymous with LYING! And they have lied with their judge judy-0esque skit of bringing atheists onto the site and proceed to bash on them only to get owned in return. They exaggerated the statistic of the christian demographic in the US
Seriously, they should have exaggerated something more obscure or not easily accessible. It's amazing how much a wiki search can do
infernalone666 2 months ago
@infernalone666 Awesome comments that you made!!
connerjd 2 months ago
I always think "if Christians dont want religious buildings at sites of terrorism, there would be very few churches in many places in the world." Complete hypocrites
pheonixshaman 7 months ago 7
@pheonixshaman
you bring a very good insight that i completely agree with
infernalone666 6 months ago
You watched Fox for an hour? God damn man, you got some balls. I can't watch Fox for 10 seconds much less an hour.
razorath92 7 months ago
You should change your name to KingCommonSense. It is amazingly stupefying how fox news continues with mere media theater to simply get ratings. Keep up the great work.
7T1RT 7 months ago
they could've built the mousque somewhere else ANYWHERE else but they wanted it as close to ground zero as possible
DrinkToIreland 7 months ago
@DrinkToIreland Yes, imagine that...they wanted to build their COMMUNITY center in a district of New York where there were LOTS OF PEOPLE. Can you believe that? Why couldn't they just build it out in the country where no one lives!?
Do you see why even if you are right that it doesn't change the FACT that it's a LEGALLY purchased plot of land where they plan to build a LEGAL building according to zoning codes? It's none of your business...why do you care?
KingHeathen 7 months ago 4
@KingHeathen i think because the community doesnt want it and thats their views there is going to be alot of crime there the building might be destroyed by some christian zealot (ps i'm a christian) its just not going to end well
DrinkToIreland 7 months ago
@KingHeathen I really understand your point of view, but I can understand why people are offended by the building of the mosque in this location. The 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of Islam (albeit the attacks were not "trully Islamic" and certainly were not representative of the majority of Muslims.) Because the attacks were carried out in the name of Islam, people find it insensitive and offensive to build something representing Islam; a mosque; so close.
66mikedove99 7 months ago
@66mikedove99 And I'll ask you the same question I ask any of the rest of them....how far away should it be?
KingHeathen 7 months ago
We have no king but Heathen!
desdijy 7 months ago
I'm confused. I thought the plan was to convert the existing (old) Burlington Coat Factory building into an Islamic Community Center, not take it down and rebuild.
Faux News is an embarrassment to America, just as much as Fundies and YEC's.
OnTheFritz602 7 months ago
If Muslims wanted to build a mural honouring Osama and mocking 9/11 in Park 51, they should be able to. People don't have the right not to be offended. Don't like it, build something they won't like next to it.
HybridD91 7 months ago
I believe your referring to Timothy Brown. When the case was brought up, Judge Paul G. Feinman said that Brown lacked any special standing on the particular fate of the building. This got Fox News' panties in a bunch, because he claimed to be a firefighter who worked on 9/11.
PaperSoapy 7 months ago
@PaperSoapy YES!!!!!! Thank you! That's him and once I finally had his name, I was able to find a clip of the show I watched as well. Thanks a bunch!
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@KingHeathen No problem my friend, love your videos. <3
PaperSoapy 7 months ago
@KingHeathen At my school we had to debate this. I was on the side favoring it. Our side was the only one that brought intelligent elements to the table. The other team kept bringing up the point that it is in 'victory'. Needless to say, we lost. When I asked others that were on the favoring side, they said they lost too, even when they clearly brought intelligent points.
Dracoflamz 7 months ago
I also hated the thought of them with the stereotype of the Chinese guy and the flick that was annoying and is just purely offensive but hey if it were Christian............I'm just going to call them hypocrites and leave it at that and yeah as Victoria says that is bloody hilarious
lancexvalentine 7 months ago
i love the fact that the ad on the side of your video is "jesus loves you... this prayer is for you....enter site" lmao
thevampirevictoria 7 months ago
I think man your talking about is Herman Cain. He was in CNN today talking about this.
Livelife8072 7 months ago
@Livelife8072 nope....this guy was white and I think a former fire fighter for NY.
KingHeathen 7 months ago
We have to embalm the whole of the fire department on duty that day. There's bound to be WTC-dust in each and everyones lungs. They're historic now.
Daealis 7 months ago
please tell me that you are in the south= to have fox news playing in an office setting as if it's no big deal... because i live in the south too.. and playing fox news in restaurants, doctor's offices etc is considered no big deal around here. i plan on moving up north to escape the idiots around here. but if you were up north and they were playing that crap in the waiting room, i'm screwed
AtheistAddiction 7 months ago
@AtheistAddiction Come up north to escape the idiots? We have our own breed of idiots up here. The self-hating leftist elitist idiots. You know, the kind that say America is evil, save the environment, and stop the evil corporations, just dont touch my 15,000 square foot mansion and my BMW 750i.
mysock351W 7 months ago
@AtheistAddiction Leave for Europe lol.
HybridD91 7 months ago
@HybridD91 we dont want that dumbass in europe stay in america stupid fucker we don't like to argue about atheism 24/7 like yanks
DrinkToIreland 7 months ago
@DrinkToIreland And yet this is the what....4th or 5th video of mine that you've commented on?
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@DrinkToIreland I don't even talk about religion outside of Youtube and to my mom....so what 'Yank' are you talking about? I'm confused.
HybridD91 7 months ago
@HybridD91 i'm saying we don't want morons like you and atheistAddiction in europe...
DrinkToIreland 7 months ago
I recently got back from a two-week trip to New York. While I was there I went to downtown Manhattan and I saw Ground Zero several times. Let me tell you, if every landmark that was covered in dust by the 9/11 attacks had to be preserved due to their "historical significance", they might as well make the twenty or so blocks around the Freedom Tower the worlds biggest museum.
ImACuteGeek 7 months ago
there could well be someones eggo stuck on the roof that fell on 911 you just dont know right..
wsda1000 7 months ago
@wsda1000 LMAO!!!! That comment just cracked me up...thanks...I needed that.
KingHeathen 7 months ago
This building is a mosque and has been one long before the controversy began when another mosque lost it's lease.
NYC is dealing with this on a local level and doesn't care what a bunch of "outsiders" think about how they do things.
TimeShockwave 7 months ago
@TLSlayer1 F.O.A.D! If I'm wrong then make the most of it.
coltrane1966 7 months ago
As far as this video goes: you totally missed the point. This isnt about just the fact that theyre biggots that dont want muslims there. Its about stopping the adherants of an ideology from plopping another victory mosque on the site of conquest. There have been thousands built in the ongoing Islamic jihad. This is par for the course with Islam. You attack in a real big way to assert your power, and then move forward with Dawah to get them to convert. If they dont, then you wage war.
mysock351W 7 months ago
If the mosque is built, it will send the message to the rest of the Islamic world that Islam now has a beach head in the "great satan", and the violence will escalate as they now will think victory is in sight. The very notions of why they are putting this thing there are contradictory to the constitution. As understood in islam, one of the mosques functions is to serve as a base of operations in the ongoing Jihad. All in all its just a really bad idea to let them move forward.
mysock351W 7 months ago
To understand why the G0 mosque shouldnt be built, you need to know what Islam really is. In its strictest sense, its a religion, but pragmatically, its a political ideology. The G0M is not being built as a house of worship. Instead its being built to assert the dominance of Islam over our culture and society. This is purely a political move by Islamists who want to see our way of life destroyed.
mysock351W 7 months ago
Fake News should have a health warning before it starts.
thernr 7 months ago
But they're fair and balanced! They report, you decide!
HOW COULD IT GO WRONG????
SentientRaven 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
islam has no shame?
shangrigreige 7 months ago
Sounds like some debris may have fallen on that man's head.
kenotube 7 months ago 2
Last I heard, the "Ground Zero mosque" might not get built because of a glitch in funding. It'll be a real shame too, at this point.
eumenidis 7 months ago
also you are a very smart man, its refreshing to hear someone talk about these issues whose not a complete idiot haha
a7x3908 7 months ago
y are youre videos so dark? haha i love them tho
a7x3908 7 months ago
I haven't watched any videos of yours lately, dunno why. Glad I watched this one.
I love this lighting!
Xerxes4242 7 months ago
Actually an International House of Pancakes would be insensitive to the disaster of Sept. 11 where the buildings collapsed rapidly due to the pancaking effect of the top floors. And I think we all know it'd be a Victory Denny's.
kreskinkun 7 months ago
where dose fox news find these people??
TheUnmaskedMagician 7 months ago
Capitalism grows very pious, when In a pinch.
If this building were for Citigroup Inc. (a bailout bank) We wouldn't even know it was happening.
pumpstations 7 months ago
on the basis of that idea all new construction in New York should cease immediately. Debris, in multiple forms, was all over the city and communities outside NYC.
MacNutz2 7 months ago
Would doing an MST3K but w/ FoxNews be a violation of something-or-other or could it be fair use?
OukaKisa 7 months ago
debri!?! wtf! either way it should be illegal to create any more religious institutions. i shit you not living in daytona fl, i seriously cant pass one block without seeing a church, synagogue, mosque, or mcdonalds, americas new favorite religion
TSCO420 7 months ago
The Ground Zero Brothel!
RadarKat73080 7 months ago
I live in NY and walked past the same building every day last year to get to work. It was ridiculous the amount of security and protesters were lined up outside that building. On the bright side I did encounter some counter protesters who restored my faith in humanity.
TheOnlyOreilly 7 months ago
Do you by chance have a link to the story itself?
I've been looking for this report and keep getting stuff from December when all this stuff started hitting the fan, if you can thanks
IkeVanDykeLmS 7 months ago
@IkeVanDykeLmS Like I said, it was on TV and I don't remember the guy's name...so, unfortunately I don't have a link for you.
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@KingHeathen The man in question wouldnt happen to be Robert Spencer, would it?
mysock351W 7 months ago
@TLSlayer1 Ok.
Morkindie 7 months ago
Nevr underestimate the stupidity of the average human being.
connerjd 7 months ago
The International House of Pancakes is owned by the Illuminati! :P
DavidRandallCurtis 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That makes as much sense as: "birds shit on it, therefore it is historic"!
kirafan68 7 months ago
Wouldn't this make prettymuch all of New York for about two miles in any direction "Historic"? Dust goes a long way.
MakoSharkX 7 months ago
@MakoSharkX
People wanted all that history cleaned up awful damn quick.
TheGreatOldOnes 7 months ago
@thatamazinggeek A foothold? Do you have any idea how many churches there are JUST on the street where I live? Do you really think that ONE mosque is going to do anything? Just admit that you are a religious bigot and be done with it...don't disguise it in this fear mongering bullshit that we all see straight through!
KingHeathen 7 months ago
It's not even a mosque it's a community building that happens to have a mosque in it
theshadowed1 7 months ago
This is only deserving of the Implied facepalm.
So stupid it's not worth the effort!
MisterEvil1 7 months ago
Debris fell on my cousin, is she historical?
nishbrown 7 months ago
@nishbrown yes! You should get her to apply to the state of New York for money for "historical maintenance" as she gets older to preserve her historic state!
Oh, and she has to walk around with the debris on her head...for historical purposes.
; )
KingHeathen 7 months ago
Hey Grappling ignorance told me about your channel i subscribed great video :D
TheIntelligentFellow 7 months ago
At least you probably get a laugh watching Fox News, I find it far more painful watching MSNBC.
reapfreak 7 months ago
@thatamazinggeek
so your saying another mosque should never be built in america again? that these people shouldnt be allowed in your country? good to see youre against the constitution as well.
we have laws in this country that stop people passing or vetoing laws based on religion. until someone gets into a position of significant power advocating for america to be a more islamic nation, there is no problem.
AceofDiamonds0 7 months ago
@TLSlayer1 That is about right. What I wonder is, why Fox News seems to be the default setting for lobbies, bars and waiting rooms.
Morkindie 7 months ago
This is why we bring books every where we go. A good novel is much better than fox news any day.
finderfinder100 7 months ago
@finderfinder100 I had my ereader...but it was hard to tune out the bullshit!
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@KingHeathen Maybe next time make sure the kids are really really loud--help drown out the sound" ok kids you get to be really loud on this trip to the dr. so dad doesn't have to hear the crap on the tv just this one time ok"
finderfinder100 7 months ago
Go to another orthodontist. If a pharmacy has that crap playing on a TV I let 'em know that I don't give business to assholes that have that crap on.
I don't know if changing orthodontists would be doable for you, but if it is... or at least you can let them know that you don't take kindly to Fox Propaganda news.
mrx0066600 7 months ago
Being forced to view Fox News for an hour?
That should be punishable by tribunal.
orly444 7 months ago
At least it looks like the corrupt Murdoch will be brought to justice soon...the wholesale misinformation campaign from FOX News has done permanent damage in our nation
loveofphysics 7 months ago
Thumbs up for long live the king!
.3.
OppositionDept 7 months ago
I'm opposed to the Mosque being built there. It's just bad tact on the muzzies to construct it.
Domzdream 7 months ago
@Domzdream good thing its not illegal not to have tact. otherwise we would have to get rid of the ground zero strip club and the shinto shrine next to pearl harbor.
AceofDiamonds0 7 months ago
@AceofDiamonds0
WHy or how people cannot get this argument is beyond me. It's like (like me who are opposed to this act) speak about apples, and the opposition continues about cabbages and potatoes.
Domzdream 7 months ago
It would make these people look less stupid, maybe more of an asshole if they just admitted that they don't want the mosque there because they are a rascist douchebag.
SuperDESTROYER71 7 months ago
I've noticed that. All these doctors, dentists offices, dmv's, all have Fox news and their propaganda blaring all day long. As if it isn't bad enough you have to go see the doctor or the dentist, and be punished with this shit. As far as the "historic" building, it just fucking amazes me what some people consider to be newsworthy, or a good reason to take something to court.
SuperDESTROYER71 7 months ago
Don't get me wrong, I think religion is stupid. I think Islam is stupid (and Christianity, and Judaism, and *list denomination here*). But what's even more stupid than religion is citing a piece of fallen debris as a reason for imposing on someone's right to freely, peacefully practice their own religion. Now THAT requires a completely different view of stupidity altogether.
Forlo12345 7 months ago
Fox = Pox.
Munnchbunnch 7 months ago
The damn dentist I go to plays faux news on the tv, too, and the place where I work. I'm absolutely amazed this many people watch it in a non ironic fashion.
Pilaf1984 7 months ago
So, King... How much longer till you give up on Humanity?
Personally, I already passed that point. XD
nagual1992 7 months ago
So, how do we call this new type of argumentation from FOX? "Argument from human excrement for brains"?
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
Oh an I suppose anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot right? There is enuf genuine non psycho info out there for an intelligent person to realize that islam likes to overlook thier conquests with mosques. its a fact. In addition they claimed it WASNT a mosque but a communty center. Sorry as far as im concerned its a training ground for religious zealots in midtown. Thats f'd up man. If you dont see that then you are too distant from the issue. Of course what do I know-I just live here right?
mucephi1 7 months ago
Hey I like your stuff and I listen to your views but you dont live in NY and you obviously dont understand the purpose of that Nazi house or mosque - whatever. The fact is that no mosque has any business overlooking the destruction of those buildings. Obviously the guy is trying to find a loophole to get his actual goal accomplished. Are you that stupid that you dont know that? I mean who is the dumbass here? Its not about being a bigot its about you being really stupid. I would love an IHOP btw
mucephi1 7 months ago
@mucephi1 I don't care if you live IN the mosque...your sadly mistaken here if you think that ANY of that has ANYTHING to do with their LEGAL purchase of land to build a LEGAL building on that land REGARDLESS of what's BLOCKS AWAY! I have an older video on this...how far away IS far enough away in your opinion if this spot isn't good enough for you...OH, and do you have a problem with the STRIP CLUB that is also "overlooking" it? That land isn't sacred. Stop treating it as such.
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@KingHeathen I never said the ground is sacred. It might not mean anything to you and it might not mean anything to moderate muslims (whatever they are), but it does matter symbolicly to the extremists that did the attacking and are now building a monument to thier triumph. One that will ALWAYS be there. A moderate wouldnt mind moving the location but they are NOT moderate and thier intention is to cause insult. If it means something to them - it should mean something to you too. It does to me.
mucephi1 7 months ago
@mucephi1 What are you basing your claims that "a moderate wouldn't moving the location", and, "they are NOT moderate", and that, "their intention is to cause insult", on? I've heard this claim often, yet never once have I heard any evidence whatsoever to support any of those (or similar) claims.
AylinIsAwesome 7 months ago
@KingHeathen Intent is everything. If I legaly buy a plot and build a park statue of a man facing west-you wouldnt care -who would. Just like I dont care if they build a building. If on the other hand you find out that the statue was built because I wanted to glorify the killing of the native americans by the white man you might be offended. You might not want it. Why? Because my intention is offensive to you. A person with a red/black armband is legal and decorative-till you know they are nazis
mucephi1 7 months ago
@mucephi1 Just because something is offensive does not make it illegal. The First Amendment guarantees that someone can't be silenced just because others do not like the message.
If that weren't the case, anything the Muslims found offensive could also be banned...not just things you find offensive.
AylinIsAwesome 7 months ago
@mucephi1 Believe it or not but people CAN wear swastika's. It's not illegal to proclaim your political stance and it's also not illegal to say you want to kill all jews. Freedom of speech. Dosn't matter at all if anybody or even the majority of the people don't like that skinhead because of freedom of speech it is not illegal.
mayrana2 7 months ago
@mucephi1 That's where you are completely wrong. If you put up your statue and it offended me...I might think you are an asshole...but I CAN NOT stop your LEGAL RIGHT to build it (unless it violates some type of ordinance which IN THIS CASE it does not.) You lose this argument in every direction you try it. Legal purchase...legal building....deal with it. If you are offended, it's YOUR problem.
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@mucephi1 It isn't even a Mosque.
dodgermutt 7 months ago
@mucephi1 Dude, it's not actually a mosque, not on Ground Zero and the Muslims aren't even the same sect as the 9/11 hijackers.
RadarKat73080 7 months ago
Sorry! I disagree!
A 150 year old building deserves to be preserved, period. I now live in a place where almost nothing is older than 1950, and it's ugly as hell. And if you take a look at the new design, it looks like a modernist's wet dream - the usual white crap with unsymmetric polygonal windows because it's cool like that.
Also, the FREAKING LANDING GEAR fell on the building...not "some debris".
Nothing precludes the OLD building being used as a mosque, however.
Rationalific 7 months ago
@Rationalific The building is damaged. It was a "Burlington Coat Factory" store prior to the purchase...you want to keep that? Should the people that legal purchased and now OWN that land be forced to keep the building YOU want? And I guarantee you that we would have never heard anything about it if they were tearing it down to build a McDonald's.
And what does it being "landing gear" matter? Are people going to buy tickets to see where the landing gear fell? NO!
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@KingHeathen Wouldn't the landing gear still be considered debris anyway? The definition of debris is anything broken down or destroyed.
mayrana2 7 months ago
@KingHeathen The fact that it was a "Burlington Coat Factory" prior to the purchase doesn't take away from anything whatsoever. Because before that, it was something else. My point is that I don't like the destruction of history, especially history that would have remained standing if not for the largest attack ever on U.S. soil.
Hiroshima has a preserved ruin. It's the building closest to the Atomic bomb site that wasn't completely destroyed. Get this! It's claim to fame IS the bombing!
Rationalific 7 months ago
@Rationalific Well landing gear?! THAT is history!
TheGreatOldOnes 7 months ago
@Rationalific Why does your opinion on what period of architecture looks best matter in this scenario? If someone else thinks that only wooden structures are aesthetically pleasing should it be illegal to tear any down and put up anything with a steal or brick construction basis? It doesn't work that way, and there's good reason for that. One person's mere opinion on aesthetics (or even a large number thereof) should not be enough to impede the legal rights of property owners for their own land.
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance The thing is, 150+ year old buildings should be preserved by law. There are so few around, particularly outside of Europe, and there's so much other stuff (a lot of it crap, in my opinion...you have yours) that has no aesthetic value at all. I don't think a Denny's or faceless office park will ever be on the UNESCO World Heritage Site list. The fact is, we are throwing away our history piece by piece. That might be OK with you, but all I'm saying is I don't like it.
Rationalific 7 months ago
@Rationalific Exactly. ALL you're saying is that you don't like it, & therefore it should be illegal. The law's job isn't to prevent things you don't like from happening. History cannot be "thrown away" it can only be forgotten. Keeping something around just because it's old and attempting to preserve it for historic value JUST because it's old crosses the concept of historical value into being an architectural pack rat. If nothing of historic significance happened there, it's expendable.
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance The "Law's" job, specifically, is to prevent events that a given society does not like happening. For instance, US law guards US citizens against "cruel and unusual" punishment. This is not the case elsewhere. The "Law" can never foresee all circumstances that a given society would deem wrong.
Exmech2 7 months ago
@Exmech2 What the hell does that have to do with me claiming that it's not the law's job to stop what one person doesn't like?
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance The fallacy in your argument is thinking only one person is involved. The law must take into account what a large group of people do want. This is called a referendum. And there certainly is a referendum occurring here. Rarely, and I mean rarely do I find myself on the same side as Fox News, but on this one, I have to agree with them. Far too many people, with valid reason, do not want to see this mosque built. And Rauf, himself, doesn't help matters.
Exmech2 7 months ago
@Exmech2 Actually, when creating a law we shouldn't consider the majority, we should consider if it's done for the right reason. If there was a law passed in this country stating that atheists cannot run for president because they don't have moral guidance, that law would get a massive popular vote. Does that mean that the atheist minority is just SOL because they aren't a majority? The premise of majority ruling is absurd.
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance Yes. I agree. AND when the majority has spoken, we need take careful notice of the referendum, and give good consideration to what brings a large group of people together on a particular subject. The City of London would never allow a "Luftwaffe Bomber Pilots Memorial" in Trafalgar Square, whether the majority were fine with it or not. BTW... the law you mentioned would never pass constitutional muster, laws like that have already been shot down.
Exmech2 7 months ago
@Exmech2 It was a hypothetical example, which served its purpose. Such a law would obviously be unconstitutional, but the same example can be extended to state that a proposal to amend the constitution to honor Christianity would pass according to a USA national vote as well- that doesn't mean it's a smart amendment or one that would/should practically pass.
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance Actually, your "hypothetical" law was very real (Torcaso v. Watkins). I'm amazed that while so many can sympathize with a Native American protest against a church being built on what was once "Sacred Ground", such as the Mi-Wuk v Vacaville City Council, yet, when a large group of Americans protest against an elementarily similar event, these Americans are viewed as crackpots and racists.
Exmech2 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance Part 1: Who are you to tell people what is "historically significant"? If there's an old ski lodge that hosted a few celebrities over the years, but nothing really significant happened, but was in use for 150 years and it occupies a stunning site in the mountains, should we tear it down and build a Wal-Mart? People go to places such as Paris and Prague not just to see one building ("the Eiffel Tower", etc) but to "take in" the historic character of everything.
Rationalific 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance Part 2: If you don't like the law preserving historical places with no historical significance that lives up to your personal standard, you will be sad to know that most countries in the world have such laws. These laws, such as ones in Singapore protecting rows of old shophouses from the demolition block, to ones in hundreds of other countries protecting numerous areas. Protecting one famous shophouse is not enough, because you can't get the "feel" of the place without many.
Rationalific 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance Part 3: How do societies make laws? They say, "I don't like it and therefore it should be illegal." That doesn't mean that the preferences behind those laws are always just, but to think that laws are made any other way would be astoundingly naive. So of course I think that there should be laws for things that I think are right...and some of those laws exist. Zoning codes, etc.
I already said that a Mosque could legally be built, so stop your hissy fit, already.
Rationalific 7 months ago
@Rationalific I have no personal standard for what should be kept up based on "historical value." I honestly couldn't care less if the Eiffel tower was bulldozed to be replaced by something its community considered more useful, or if the community sold it to someone who decided to tear it down. Claiming that other countries have national laws that fit your standard does nothing to convince me that mine should. Societies make laws based on congressional votes, not individual complaints.
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance I have yet to find any point that you make. Am I the ruler of the world? No. Do I make the rules? No. Can I give my opinion? Yes. What happens when the vast majority of people give their opinion and leaders listen? Laws are enacted, changed, or done away with. What happens when a few people give their opinion and leaders don't listen? Laws remain the same. What, exactly is your point?
I gave an opinion. I'm not chaining myself to the demolition site. SO WHAT'S IT TO YOU?!
Rationalific 7 months ago
Perhaps if you stop getting so touchy & just focus on rationality you'll see my points. You sated "The thing is, 150+ year old buildings should be preserved by law." You can have that opinion, yes. And other people can explain why that opinion makes little to no sense. It's up to you to explain WHY laws should get involved to preserve old buildings just because they're old. I take the stance of remembering history, but living in the present and building for the future. Makes sense to me.
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance I think we have come to an understanding. If the world were made up of people like me, we would preserve our history. We'd have laws to that effect. If the world were made up of people like you, we'd let property owners do whatever they want to their property, without regards to anything else. It seems that the actual culture and laws are somewhere between our two extremes. Neither of us can change that by ourselves right now. So things will happen that we don't like.
Rationalific 7 months ago
@Rationalific Not quite. Nothing's actually happening that I don't like. People are free to build their "mosque" on the property they own, just as the community wanted, and the fact that it had been and old building, and that landing gear had fallen there are doing nothing to stop that, just as they shouldn't. The only thing happening that I don't like is the very complaint that KingHeathen is making wherein Fox news attempts to construct a mountain from a molehill to say the least.
GrapplingIgnorance 7 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance Sure, I admit... In this case, things are happening that I don't like, but which you don't mind. In this case, you're right. But since some great cities such as Florence, Venice, Prague, and Budapest - with strict preservation laws - haven't been gutted by greedy developers and an ignorant population that advocates the superiority of monetary transactions above everything else, I figure that's gotta irk you. Or maybe you're just opinion-less, except when you reply to me.
Rationalific 7 months ago
news corp and FOX news aren't stupid, they know exactly what they are doing, which is spreading evil and bull doody.
.... heathen has a daughter?
mattybock 7 months ago
So let me get this straight, so if Hitler's house exploded, and a piece of the debris fell on top of some shack....that would make that shack a historical shack? That seems pretty retarded. Does it matter what seize of debris? And also, wouldnt that make EVERY single place, including the food stands around the area that were hit by debris historical??? So if a taco stand was hit by debris, ash...therefor if someone wanted to build a walmart, they couldnt?
jay666KJ 7 months ago
@jay666KJ
So technically, you couldnt build ANYTHING around that area, it would be ALL historic, other wise it's just special pleading, making a special exception. Yeah, it's very obvious that it's just bigotry when you are just grabbing at straws.
jay666KJ 7 months ago
If they preserved everything in New York debris fell on, then they would have had to abandon the entire area, everything that was touched by the dust cloud.
dangerouslytalented 7 months ago
We had a campaign to save an old railway station where I lived before - the reason given for wanting to save it was that it had a "unique" drainage system that no-one knew about until the developers who were disliked intensely wanted to pull down the building - it was a bit of fitting the data to the theory like the Park 51 project.
johncrwarner 7 months ago
@johncrwarner Some buildings should be preserved whole. Some buildings should be partially preserved, with magnificent architect designed construction fitted carefully and respectfully around the remaining elements, and some should be dismantled brick by brick and never mentioned again.
dangerouslytalented 7 months ago
@dangerouslytalented
I agree - and standards for what should be pulled down and what should be kept will vary from time to time. The "part of the sacred land that is the 9/11 site" is a back story and they would not object to anything else except a islamic cultural centre in this location.
johncrwarner 7 months ago
Fox News is owned by Murdoch and given the current shit storm surrounding him I'm sure their just bringing this up to try and get peoples thoughts away from the hacking of dead childrens phones
Coughlan616 7 months ago
@Coughlan616 The Ground Zero Mosque is the Newscorp equivalent of jingling keys. Such distractions ALWAYS crop up whenever there is a rightwing scandal.
dangerouslytalented 7 months ago
It is really hard to find a public place where Fox news is not the station playing around here (well except during football season lol). I was rather ecstatic a couple weeks ago when my gf and I went somewhere and they had on a different news channel lol.
MyPisceanNature 7 months ago
My dentist lets me change the channel :D
Doppelgangersin 7 months ago
they're going ahead with it?! but i was planning a trip to go see that building and show my family "yup.. that's where some debris fell.. amazing right? soooo historic.."
Polum824545201 7 months ago
I had some debris fall on me from a seagull once. Do you think i should be preserved?
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
I had to check the date of this video when I saw title..
wolfwing1 7 months ago
Using that logic, no-one can ever build anything in London because of the debris from the Blitz.
DLandonCole 7 months ago
Really? I thought this issue was done and this is how they revive it!? Next they'll start saying that's where Jesus lived! Oh dear...
BygPhattyPlus 7 months ago
My day was fine. Thanks for asking.
pokekid716 7 months ago
ROFL
rozeboosje 7 months ago
You're wrong.
It's like this:
How much stupidity can Fox News put into one hour?
All of it.
Squiglypig 7 months ago
.... Gonna have a drink.... that way i will avoid breaking either my desk or my head..
speakwithdeath 7 months ago
Sometimes a facepalm is just not enough.
Sometimes even multiple facepalms are not enough.
*Slams head on desk repeatedly*
:)
PeterThenn 7 months ago 9
@PeterThenn That's why I created the "Mega Face Palm!" as seen in the "Face Palms Galore" video.
KingHeathen 7 months ago
@PeterThenn not enough, do it again
raythetse 7 months ago
@PeterThenn that is called a *headdesk* =3
OukaKisa 7 months ago
It seems like every TV set in any public place or business is set on Fox.
I get up and change the channel. I don't even ask.
Morkindie 7 months ago
You could get funding for an American Flag Distribution Centre.
no2religions 7 months ago
Remember when conservatives stood up for property rights? Fucking social conservative neo-con fuck wits.
hanzo138 7 months ago
"Debris fell on it" *blinks* I had to do a double take when I heard that. That's so silly. I mean if they're going to argue for something it'd be nice if they at least came up with somewhat logical reasons for their argument. "Debris fell on it" Yeah and debris falls on my house every year that we get hit by a hurricane, doesn't make my house a historical landmark.
ShinigamiKonata 7 months ago
For too freaking long that place has been a barren construction site. We should have rebuilt the towers within the first year.
SonOfCallaugh 7 months ago
FOX for 60 min aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ok now its time for the VODKA
invisibletime 7 months ago
holy fuck...so stupid it hurts. lol.
MobileThinker 7 months ago
The funny part about it is that it's not even a mosque
SiriusMined 7 months ago
@SiriusMined They call it a mosque because it has a prayer room in it.
But by THAT definition, every building with an islamic prayer room is a mosque, every university, every office block, the Pentagon, Congress, and EVEN THE TWIN TOWERS THEMSELVES.
dangerouslytalented 7 months ago 14
@dangerouslytalented
Yeah, but that irony is lost of the mindless bigots.
SiriusMined 7 months ago