New York Mosque? Near ground Zero?!!

[tulc]

This is the freeist country in the world and, probably, in the history of mankind.

uhmmm...actually no, we're not. been here?:
http://www.heritage.org/index/topten

according to this it appears we're not even one of the top 5.

So I don't get kicked off, I'll just say - No Comment.

Almost never a bad thing to choose!
tulc("this space for rent")

 

[Algol Omega]

uhmmm...actually no, we're not. been here?:
[link removed]

according to this it appears we're not even one of the top 5.

Key problem with that list: not a single one of those places has laws that actually protect the Individual from the collective society, and if the Individual isn't protected, there is no freedom; for the smallest minority on earth is the individual, and without his liberties being protected, all is lost.

At the end of the day, the U.S. is still the most libertarian nation, because only in America, are people armed to the teeth willing to both kill and die for their liberty.

Thomas Jefferson -

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

 

[tulc]

Key problem with that list: not a single one of those places has laws that actually protect the Individual from the collective society, and if the Individual isn't protected, there is no freedom; for the smallest minority on earth is the individual, and without his liberties being protected, all is lost.

At the end of the day, the U.S. is still the most libertarian nation, because only in America, are people armed to the teeth willing to both kill and die for their liberty.

Thomas Jefferson -

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

So...no actual facts to support your theory?
tulc(just curious)

 

[Algol Omega]

So...no actual facts to support your theory?
tulc(just curious)

(Your website is nothing more than collectivist opinion, so don't tell me about facts.)

How can a country be free when it does not respect the Individual's rights? How can you sit there and believe people are free when they're being taxed to death? What makes you think that just because you're allowed to disagree with the government makes you free? What makes you think that you can be free when there's no rights to private property?

Ayn Rand -

If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism.

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.

These two—reason and freedom—are corollaries, and their relationship is reciprocal: when men are rational, freedom wins; when men are free, reason wins.

Thomas Jefferson -

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

 

[tulc]

(Your website is nothing more than collectivist opinion, so don't tell me about facts.)

uhmmm...You might want to look over that site before you make an assumption. Just a suggestion.
For instance here :
2010 Index of Economic Freedom | The Heritage Foundation

For over a decade, The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation, Washington's preeminent think tank, have tracked the march of economic freedom around the world with the influential Index of Economic Freedom. Since 1995, the Index has brought Smith's theories about liberty, prosperity and economic freedom to life by creating 10 benchmarks that gauge the economic success of 183 countries around the world. With its user-friendly format, readers can see how 18th century theories on prosperity and economic freedom are realities in the 21st century.

Then there's the FAQ:

Q.1. What is economic freedom? Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

All of which makes your next statement sort of suggest you didn't read the link;

How can a country be free when it does not respect the Individual's rights? How can you sit there and believe people are free when they're being taxed to death? What makes you think that just because you're allowed to disagree with the government makes you free? What makes you think that you can be free when there's no rights to private property?

Tell you what, you look at the link I posted and get back to me, then we'll discuss which of us is "collectivist" and which of us doesn't have facts.
tulc(is going to pour some more coffee)

 

[Algol Omega]

uhmmm...You might want to look over that site before you make an assumption. Just a suggestion.
For instance here :

Then there's the FAQ:
All of which makes your next statement sort of suggest you didn't read the link;

Tell you what, you look at the link I posted and get back to me, then we'll discuss which of us is "collectivist" and which of us doesn't have facts.
tulc(is going to pour some more coffee)

I definitely read that page, so you obviously don't get it.

Without political and intellectual freedom, there is no economic freedom at the end of the day; you cannot have a free market if you're not free to think nor free to defend.

While The Heritage Foundation has credibility, you should bother taking them with a grain of salt just like any other organization. This is especially true when they have already fallen into the trap of the theory that the state "allows" for the production of consumption (which is what lead us to this filthy economy to begin with, that somehow the government - not the people - is the creator of wealth; ironically, something I've heard that Adam Smith fell for as well... no wonder he is but a mere faux figure); rather, it is the people that allow for the production of consumption in a free market. It is not the place of the government to regulate the economy, period.

 

[tulc]

I definitely read that page, so you obviously don't get it.

Without political and intellectual freedom, there is no economic freedom at the end of the day; you cannot have a free market if you're not free to think nor free to defend.

While The Heritage Foundation has credibility, you should bother taking them with a grain of salt just like any other organization. This is especially true when they have already fallen into the trap of the theory that the state "allows" for the production of consumption (which is what lead us to this filthy economy to begin with, that somehow the government - not the people - is the creator of wealth; ironically, something I've heard that Adam Smith fell for as well... no wonder he is but a mere faux figure); rather, it is the people that allow for the production of consumption in a free market. It is not the place of the government to regulate the economy, period.

Still, I suspect you weren't being completely accurate when when you called them collectivists, and the link I posted did have facts that supported my opinion.
tulc(is still waiting for your supporting evidence)

 

[The Lady Kate]

uhmmm...actually no, we're not. been here?:
Top ten countries in trade, business, fiscal, monetary, financial, labor, investment and other freedoms

according to this it appears we're not even one of the top 5.

Well then we have to at least maintain the illusion of being the freest.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Key problem with that list: not a single one of those places has laws that actually protect the Individual from the collective society, and if the Individual isn't protected, there is no freedom; for the smallest minority on earth is the individual, and without his liberties being protected, all is lost.

Even if the individual is a Muslim, right?

At the end of the day, the U.S. is still the most libertarian nation, because only in America, are people armed to the teeth willing to both kill and die for their liberty.

Are they now? Or is it all just talk?

Macho posturing does not impress me.

 

[Algol Omega]

Even if the individual is a Muslim, right?

Even a Muslim has every right to live as he chooses... SO LONG AS HE DOES NOT COERCE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING! Regardless of religious creed, the lack thereof, political beliefs, or income level, no one has any right whatsoever to coerce another man into or from something: it is sinful, and it is tyrannical.

Let me be very clear about Individualism.

I have no right to prevent you from having sex with your own gender in your own house; Muslims have no right to prevent you from eating pork; Atheists have no right to prevent you from believing; Hinduists have no right to prevent you from believing in whatever god you choose; and no one has any right whatsoever to prevent you from taking your own life.

What you do unto yourself, is your own business. However, it is each religious person's right to recruit. It is also their right to refuse service regardless of condition. It is also their right to be altruistic, just like it is my right to be greedy, to be a narcissist.

But no single right can anyone expect without risk. Everything comes at a cost; while the employee may unionize together with his coworkers, he has no right whatsoever to demand it without risk. Likewise, the employer has every right to fire the union worker; but no right to demand no protests. The consumer has every right to come and go; but he does not have the right to expect better treatment or products.

Furthermore, allow me to reverse it a bit: if you want yourself a collective society, where upon you and your buddies all decide to live together, or do something. That is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing wrong with having your own collective society; the problem is when you want to force it down someone else's throats (Atheists, Christians, Unitarians, Universalists, Muslims, Statists, etc. - all religious and non-religious groups attempt to do it to one degree or another). (Which brings up another thing... Individualism isn't about what you think to begin with; it doesn't matter whether or not you think the whole world should burn down, or that you think an entire culture are demons; all that matters is the action itself.)

Are they now? Or is it all just talk?

Macho posturing does not impress me.

Anyone worth their salt isn't impressed by macho posturing, your point?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Even a Muslim has every right to live as he chooses... SO LONG AS HE DOES NOT COERCE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING! Regardless of religious creed, the lack thereof, political beliefs, or income level, no one has any right whatsoever to coerce another man into or from something: it is sinful, and it is tyrannical.

Just want to make sure this applies to everyone... I've heard a lot of "one rule for three, another rule for me," thinking on these boards... happy you're not one of them.

Anyone worth their salt isn't impressed by macho posturing, your point?

My point is that the people who yell the loudest about how they'll fight and die for "freedom" are just posturing. Unless you're in the military, the odds of you fighting, let alone actually dying, for freedom is nearly nil.

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

Just want to make sure this applies to everyone... I've heard a lot of "one rule for three, another rule for me," thinking on these boards... happy you're not one of them.




My point is that the people who yell the loudest about how they'll fight and die for "freedom" are just posturing. Unless you're in the military, the odds of you fighting, let alone actually dying, for freedom is nearly nil.

My dearest sister,

I have followed this thread for months, and yours is a reasonable and sound voice. I appreciate your tone and your levelheadedness. Your fruit it well seen by this fellow humble servant.

In the above post you wrote that "unless your in the military" irt fighting and/or dying for our freedom.

I tell you this. The ALmighty ALone choose who will and won't be free. You, me, all of humanity. Yes, we fight wars, but not even the revolutionary war was fought for freedom, but rather ideology.

The FACT is that while we disguise murder by calling it freedom fighting, we, as a people, are guilty of MURDER. There is none innocent in it either, especially if we impose the ALmighty's blessing's upon such murder.

God bless america is blasphemy.

I wish we could all just call a spade a spade, and truly follow our Beloved's lead in turning the other cheek, and allow the Father's Will be done.

God bless you dear sister for doing so in this thread.

 

[john_davis3]

A. I firmly believe that the Church being denied a permit is more worthy of a thread than this.
B. Who cares if who is building it is anti-american? If we have evidence of them doing anything illegal, then we'll shut them down. I don't believe they're going to bomb anything or commit any act of violence, but if they don't believe that what we're doing is right then, well, listen! Hearing other peoples opinions on things was why I joined this forum, and so far all I've found was hate, with so many people saying someone is wrong an that they don't agree to even have a place to worship just because we disagree with them! Disagreement breeds debate, debate breeds discussion, discussion breeds betterment.
C. I think it was a man named Jesus who said something along the lines of "love they neighbor". Now, I haven't read the bible for a little while, and you may be going with a different version, but the last time I checked it wasn't "love they neighbor unless they're Muslim". If I lived in one of the many places in this world where America has done wrong and they weren't letting me build a church near one of the sites, I'd be little upset. What happened to all that "What would Jesus do?" stuff that went around a few years ago. It's like we've forgotten to look at Christianity as a philosophy FIRST when looking at a problem.

 

[john_davis3]

To look away from the message in that just because I presented it in a unclean manner is the same kind of close minded thinking that liberals peg Christians as.
Please be a bit more open minded. Not everyone has to be a stereotype

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

To look away from the message in that just because I presented it in a unclean manner is the same kind of close minded thinking that liberals peg Christians as.
Please be a bit more open minded. Not everyone has to be a stereotype

Blaspheming the Son of the Living God is not the way to present ANY kind of argument.

i am openminded and often share the Gospel and hear out Islamists. i am an apologist? of sort. I do not believe that mankind, whether liberal or conservative have ANY answers for what is coming. But I do know, more of the sickness posted by you previously will be coming.

Praying for you brother.

 

[john_davis3]

CLEARLY you did not read what I had wrote. I used an extreme example to of the compassion Jesus showed during his lifetime and stated that we should try to make ourselves as close to that as possible. Who cares the language I used, the message stays the same as if I had cited him helping a Samaritan women with her well. If you cannot see that, then there is no other word but ignorance that I can use.

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

CLEARLY you did not read what I had wrote. I used an extreme example to of the compassion Jesus showed during his lifetime and stated that we should try to make ourselves as close to that as possible. Who cares the language I used, the message stays the same as if I had cited him helping a Samaritan women with her well. If you cannot see that, then there is no other word but ignorance that I can use.

The Lord could heal a man as he could heal this divide between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, however using vulgarities to describe His passion for His fellow man is offensive.

i am leaving it at that.

unsubscribing.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

So, according to CNN, the new head of the Park51 project has quit- after only three weeks and one controversial post on the job.

Imam Adhami quits.