Newt Gingrich Endorses Sharia Law
P.Z. Meyers and his commenters once coined the term “fatwa envy” referring to religious hate mail he would receive. These emails would often say P.Z. wouldn’t have done whatever action they’re perturbed about to Muslims because they would behead him or something. Do you think Newt Gingrich has a touch of fatwa envy?
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.
[Go to the link to read the whole statement]
Newt Gingrich thinks that the standard for religious freedom in America is actually Saudi Arabia. That’s nice to know.
Palin or Gingrich in 2012? Oh, I can’t wait.
Against Obama? Can’t wait.
Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Debt, debt. debt.
Taxes, taxes, taxes.
im sorry, how has sarah palin proposed we create jobs? oh thats right… by ‘rearin’ up on our hind legs and defendin’ our young!”
how has she proposed to lower the debt? “by gettin’ in there are cuttin’ big gumment, and refudiating the muslims.”
What. A. Moron.
And we all know Newt is just a conduit to do the Pope’s bidding.
Given the infinite number of ways that Obama has acted stupidly over the last 18 months, I’d be careful about mocking Palin. After all, Obama is supposed to be the brilliant one, while you guys crafted the narrative that Palin is as mentally defective as her youngest child.
In the interest of following advice my grandma gave me growing up, I really ought to find something nice to say about the guy I just criticized, so here goes:
1) He’s clean.
2) He’s articulate.
3) He has no Negro dialect.
Surely you won’t object to such compliments, coming as they do from leading Democrat intellectuals.
LOL Observer you’d be funny
That was very insensitive to Trig, observer. i wouldnt call him an idiot, or moron, or even defective. his mother however is of average intelect, but she is also an attention whore with NO grasp of the issues.
Given that those with Down Syndrome are mentally (and physically) defective, there is nothing insensitive in noting that reality. The deficits in cognitive, motor, and other abilities of those with Down Syndrome are well-documented.
why are you attacking Sarah Palin’s children? she works so hard to fix this country of ours and all you do is drag her family into the discussion.
grow up.
Does anybody really feel that a mosque at the sight of a Muslim terrorist attack is a good thing ? If your answer is yes, I would love to hear the reasoning behind it.
I do. Because having a mosque — which it’s not, by the way — at a Muslim terrorist target might deter another attack, at least by Muslim extremists.
Now I have a question: Why all the emotional investment in a piece of real estate?
Does anyone think people in Alaska or Delaware have the right to tell the people of New York City where they can build things? It passed through a zoning board and anyone who objected had their say then.
fbh it is not a good thing, not a bad thing, it’s just a thing.
FBH, it is proof we are smart enough as a society to realize only a small group of Muslims attacked us and NOT the entire Muslim religion.
It is a good thing because it shows we have not been made scared of the whole world, like dumb little bugs might be, by one action who’s perpetrators just HAPPEN to go to the same house of worship that is being built.
It shows we aren’t xenophobic morons.
… unless we haven’t learned anything, and unless the terrorists HAVE succeeded in making up scared… have they FBH? has Osama beaten you?
It’ll never happen guaranteed. Just like the detainee trials, they were never going to happen. Look past the ideology and realize the reality. New Yorkers won’t let it happen. Trouble just plain and simple trouble.
I think when these things are run past the public, it’s just a test to measure the attitude and disposition of the people.
new yorkers are better and more open minded than you give them credit for, teabag. they know the difference between the actual terrorists and other Muslims. Remember, “REAL” america is the hegemonic ignorant area Palin roams around in. New Yorkers arent that. (but they ARE pathetic yankee/met fans.)
Interesting the FBH is taking the mindset that it’ll never happen instead of defending the freedom of religion.
why would he do that? His feeble conservative mind think all Muslims are socialist nazis
Nemski,it doesn’t have to do with freedom of religion, it has to do with common sense.
The officials for the city, including law enforcement, probably already realize that putting a mosque or whatever near ground zero probably is not the smartest thing to do, as far as keeping the peace goes.
ah. it is commons sense to be scared of everything and link every representation of a large religion (in relation to world history) to one small event
It doesn’t have to do with common sense. It has everything to do with cranking up the wingnut outrage/fundraising machine and getting nit wits like FBH into a lather.
Again… I guess FBH and Observer would protest a Christian church/establishment at the site of the Oklahoma City bombing. Right????
Which gets me to thinking. I think people lament that there is not a liberal media to counter balance the right wing faux outrage creating media establishment. The reason I think we don’t have a similar establishment is that liberals are not as stupid as FHB and his fellow wingnut media consumers.
Even if it was leftist, we would recoil at the dumbed down, transparent propagandistic type media that they can’t get enough of.
I actually don’t give a shit about the mosque or whatever, I just think it spells logistical trouble for the city.
Just as I predicted that the detainee trials wouldn’t happen in NYC, I predict that the mosque or whatever won’t be put next to Ground Zero.
Unlike the detainee trials, government officials don’t have much control over what a private group does with private property — particularly when a religion is involved. FBH: If zoning codes are followed, under what pretext could government prevent this?
logistical trouble? you need to try harder to mask your piss-pants fear of different people.
“government officials don’t have much control over what a private group does with private property”
Really ? I’ll have to disagree with that.
can you disagree with proof? or just because you feel like having your own anti-obama set of facts? teabag.
“Really ? I’ll have to disagree with that.”
Really? Based on what?
There are enough property regulations in enough parts of this country that the government pretty well can dictate what uses can and cannot be made of real property in most incorporated — and many unincorporated — parts of this country. And then we can’t leave out the use of eminent domain because the government would rather have developer X pay higher taxes than his competitor who does not give high enough campaign contributions, much less some lower middle class schmuck who might live there and pay fewer property taxes.
so now you are advocating that big government step in and stop private citizens’ right to their freedom of religion?
a.price — I will try to use small words for your benefit.
Comment by fightingbluehen on 24 July 2010 at 4:00 pm:
“government officials don’t have much control over what a private group does with private property”
Really ? I’ll have to disagree with that.
You and geezer both asked for evidence to support that.
I therefore responded with my comment above noting the many ways in which government has control over what private individuals and groups can do with their real property. The technical term would be “answering the question”.
As for whether or not some sort of government intervention to stop the building of this mosque at a 9/11 site is a an appropriate action is subject to debate — but then again, given that historical preservation arguments are made to prevent the building of homes and businesses near Civil War battlefields so as to retain their historical ambiance, I think a reasonable argument could be made for doing the same to prevent the this inappropriate project from going forward.
“There are enough property regulations in enough parts of this country that the government pretty well can dictate what uses can and cannot be made of real property in most incorporated — and many unincorporated — parts of this country.”
I made note of zoning laws in my post. This project apparently meets them or we wouldn’t be at this point in the discussion. Do you have an actual complaint, or just your usual whining?
And advocating big government when the scary “other people” want to do something.
I know you hate that everyone is free to practice their faith in America, Observer…. at least free to do it someplace where you might see them and that just drives the teabag mind nuts. It cant deal with the fact that a small group of people from the world’s largest religion did something bad, but most of the rest of the people who pray like them aren’t like that. Better to discriminate against all of em just in case right? We did that to the Japanese in WWII and it turned out fine. No one even talks about it anymore.
Observer, you are wrong, your view of this country is wrong, you’ll never get Jim Crow back, our whatever it is when you people say “WE’RE TAKING OUR GUMMENT BACK BLAAHHHHHH!!!!”
Guess I am a contrarian and a Liberal. That being said, building a Mosque near the WTC is comparable to building a shrine to Adolph Hitler abuttin the Wailing Wall in Jeruselum. How dare the even consider it? Shame on Bloomburg for endorsing it., Kudos to Gingrich for his comments on Stone and the Mosque. You know, I’m getting to sort of like Gingrich. At least he’s a viable choice to that ding bat from Alaska.
You might be a lot of things, but comparing Islam — all of Islam — to Hitler shows you are no liberal.
I’m having trouble finding the “Liberal” in your comment, Dan.
Pandora: Don’t strain your eyes. It ain’t there.
“I therefore responded with my comment above noting the many ways in which government has control over what private individuals and groups can do with their real property. The technical term would be “answering the question”.”
Actually, you “answered” only in the most technical sense. You didn’t note any ways in which government controls anything. You simply made a broad, general statement without the slightest bit of evidence to support it.
I believe what you are talking about is zoning, which only controls what can and cannot be done in the broadest sense. Again, as I noted above, zoning laws have been followed in this case. Which puts the ball in your court — what, specifically, can be done to interfere with this apparently legal use of the land? Or don’t your wingnut sources have any ideas for you to parrot?