Skip to comments.Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich's Position on Ground Zero Mosque
Posted on 08/17/2010 2:18:44 PM PDT by detritus
Joe Scarborough on Monday bashed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for saying the building of the Ground Zero mosque would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum...
The next day on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Scarborough let Gingrich have it...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Scarborough made some excellent points this morning — once the camel’s nose is under the tent, maybe next time it’ll be an Evangelical church told it can’t build in San Francisco because the locals are “offended”.
What about Paul Craig Roberts? Did he say something about this?
Distance is arbitrary.
If we go by that, then it would be same problem that we are havinig closing Gitmo.
No one wants those prisoners in their State.
What is to say that people in the new spot won’t be just as offended. Was tragedy of 9/11 exclusive for people with 1-2 miles radius of Ground Zero? Were Americans in other places hurt or just as hurt and offended?
Second, as I pointed out to other posters, there is already a Mosque that is open now, on 20th street, much CLOSER to Ground Zero? Why isn’t there outrage about that? Is it because this new one is being used as a way to rile people, and distract them from being ROBBED by Bankers, and have them focus on each other?
Rights are rights, and that is why when we LEAST like them, we must still PROTECT them, because once you open the door, rest assured, in DUE TIME we would ALL lose them.
All Elites want is to get their foot in. This is their first foray to TRAMPLE Bill of Rights. Either we defend it, or this is STEP-1 in losing it.
Mr Newt has been making a whole lot of sense lately.
Now that's the real fascist tactic.
What’s wrong with what Newt said?
“This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”
Not a damn thing wrong with this statement.
Yep. Berkeley already tried to throw out US Army Recruiters. I believe San Francisco already is trying to pass some legislation to oppose churches that oppose gay Marriages. I am no 100% but I heard something like that. Maybe someone else remembers can post relevant information. I have to do some search, but it was RECENT.
It is freaking time that muslims practiced some tolerance instead of demanding it.
I think most of us realize the constitutional issue here. The matter really falls upon propriety and sensitivity. This is absolutely designed as an "in-your-face" move to build this center. We don't necessarily have to ignore the Constitution to work to keep it from being built. While most people can agree that they have a right to build it, we also have a right to oppose it. This can be done in many ways. Construction projects are delayed every day in cities and states by red tape, palm greasing, and zoning disagreements. Look at the ground zero project itself. How many years is it going to take before that thing is finished?
If anything, we should be roadblocking the hell out of this until the project either gets too expensive, or they get bored and move on to somewhere else. It happens all the time on innocent projects, and it could happen here as well if we had politicians with stones. And it could all be done while staying within the Constitution.
Why not try and get that one closed first?
The already-built 20th street mosque does not constitute a visible insult to the families of people killed in the attack on America, September 11, 2001 and proves the point that no one is claiming Muslims cannot build a mosque or worship. That is clearly a bogus argument and you know it.
You're attempting to blunt the opposition to the proposed mosque in question by focusing on it's location, as if that is the sole point of contention, which you must know it is not. You carefully avoid dealing with the sheer impropriety of building a 13-story tower dedicated to Islam hard by the site of the sneak attack by Muslim terrorists nine years ago in Manhattan. Thus, your defense of this proposed mosque is specious and unconvincing.
I never heard any of this! He resigned?
I actually don’t understand your conflating Gitmo with the mosque. They have nothing to with each other from a legal perspective or social compact.
They knew there would be one hell of an issue with most Americans.
And the only real reason for their building this edifice is as a monument, is just completely insensitive and is meant to insult us.
And if rights are rights then there should be no problem with opening a butcher shop, next door that caters mainly to those who prefer pork products.
Could even follow Greg Gutfields suggestion that a gay bar be opened across the street. My suggestion for the name is “Bottoms Up”.
Next to that they could open a porn shop and a porn theater. Heck, it could be called “The Pornicopia Mall”.
Boy, that’s the truth! And, it would be a good first step to see them acquiesce on this issue. It could be the beginning of something truly great. But it will have to come from them because they cannot come from government.
Bingo. I noted this on an earlier thread (one claiming that government workers got paid twice as much as everybody else -- basically, it came down to a junk-statistics trick of just averaging the two groups together without comparing jobs at equivalent education and experience levels).
The Great And Powerful Oz is pulling out all his pyrotechnic arts to get you to look anywhere other than behind the curtain.
I am not sure if those rights have been tested.
What about the new place that the mosque is moved to?
Do the people living in that community have right to object? Were they not hurt just as much as anyone else on 9/11? What about community where lots of kids are serving in armed forces and that community is losting its sons and daughters?
What about someone who tries to build a church or synagogue in heavy muslim areas of Michigan? Can they on the grounds of mid-east conflict claim offense and demand certain arbitrary distance to move them?
If politicians didn’t make it a big issue that is has become, then community could have solved it amongst themselves, and if people were genuinely outraged, then that city-council would have been voted out.
Now that is HAS become a flash point, to me it is rights issue now.
You have absolutely NO earthly idea what you are talking about. Don’t come here and fling bald faced lies, please.
You mean kinda like the Greek Orthodox? church that the powers that be have NOT allowed to be rebuilt since it was demolished on 9/11?
I assure you, with ALL MY HEART, I support Gutfeld’s Gay Muslim Bar and Pork Butcher shop at Park 50 and Park 52 respectively.
If I was Billionare, I would make it happen.
As for my point, I am not saying it is exactly same, but in terms of OFFENSE, people didn’t want those prisoners from Gitmo moved to their state, for either security reasons, or just not wanting certain filth in their community.
We have to let people offend each other. That is MUCH SAFER than people not allowed to offend each other.
I talked to a guy the other day and told me that Mexicans were taking his job away. I took the hat off his head and showed him the label inside. It said “Made in China.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.