Conservatives seek violation of Constitution & law

[KSagal]

Enough with the ad hominin attacks. I do not owe anyone any explanations, and will not be goaded into it.

I know enough about the Church vs the Mosque and the path to solution both took, and the support they got from whom.

You can say I am ignorant, but that does not make it so.

It is nice that you tell others about knee-jerk reactions I made, but since you know nothing about me or my knowledge of anything, your statement is not valid at best, a lie at worst.

I say what I say on this forum. If you believe that everything I say here is all I know, you are being foolish.

I did not draw conclusions, nor state that I knew entire stories, nor even that the church was denied a permit. I said that the mosque got a permit and the church did not. That is not the same as you said.

So, just dial it back a bit, and keep the attacks on me to a minimum. Deny what I say, refute my statements all you like. Telling others what kind of man I am, based on my responses to your rantings is out of line.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

This is going in circles. Questions and issues are raised, dialogue and editorials are posted in response, then the issues are rephrased and repeated all over again, feigning ignorance, because the responses did not align with the personal politics.

If you listened to Mr. Olbermann's editorial and read the NY Times article, and STILL posted the entry above, there is little point in continuing this discussion. Dialogue also requires listening to produce understanding.

And dialog requires that you and your side occasionally answer a question. I asked the same simple question several times, and it has still not been answered.

I can hear a liar speak answers to questions that liars ask, and still be ignorant to the real facts in a situation. The fact is that Olbermann and NYTimes are every bit as biased as Fox is, at a minimum.

You asked what question was asked and not answered and I reposted it, then you say I am going in circles. Who led us here?

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

And dialog requires that you and your side occasionally answer a question. I asked the same simple question several times, and it has still not been answered.

I can hear a liar speak answers to questions that liars ask, and still be ignorant to the real facts in a situation. The fact is that Olbermann and NYTimes are every bit as biased as Fox is, at a minimum.

You asked what question was asked and not answered and I reposted it, then you say I am going in circles. Who led us here?

I don't recall asking any such thing, and it has nothing to do with my previous post. I said this was going in circles because issues were brought up, information about the issues was posted, then the issues were re-worked and restated another way, as if the previous dialogue had been ignored.

You imply a sense of distrust of the Olbermann and NY Times information. Can you go through the content therein and tell us where it is inaccurate? Also, if you do not accept information and opinions stated by Olbermann and the NY Times regarding this issue, please tell us which sources are acceptable to you, and we can go there.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

I don't recall asking any such thing, and it has nothing to do with my previous post. I said this was going in circles because issues were brought up, information about the issues was posted, then the issues were re-worked and restated another way, as if the previous dialogue had been ignored.

You imply a sense of distrust of the Olbermann and NY Times information. Can you go through the content therein and tell us where it is inaccurate? Also, if you do not accept information and opinions stated by Olbermann and the NY Times regarding this issue, please tell us which sources are acceptable to you, and we can go there.

yet another diffusion. The tingle up my leg man is not objective, not a reporter, he is a cheer leader who said he feels it is his job to help the president accomplish his objectives. That is not a statement of someone who might criticize or be fair or balanced.

Answer the question.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

Karl, it seems to me that Civicsman addresses virtually everything you bring up or ask, whether he considers it "of value" or not. If threads like this are meant to be enlightening dialogues, the haughty / elitist / dismissive attitude expressed above contributes nothing towards it and seems counterproductive, so why even bother?

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

I don't recall asking any such thing, and it has nothing to do with my previous post. I said this was going in circles because issues were brought up, information about the issues was posted, then the issues were re-worked and restated another way, as if the previous dialogue had been ignored.
...

I was just asking him to answer the question.

[Civicsman]

Enough with the ad hominin attacks. I do not owe anyone any explanations, and will not be goaded into it.

I'm not making attacks on anyone. I'm asking questions about personal responsibility, and allowing other readers to decide for themselves. Some people may not like being exposed to such visibility, but individuals here always have the option of not posting, especially regarding subjects where they have no knowledge.

Further, the facts of the situation indicate something completely different from your allegation that the reason the Greek Orthodox Church does not yet have building permits is "a function of political correctness not only running amok, but being very selective in doing so". In such a situation, a poster may not "owe" readers an explanation, but refusal to provide a reasoned argument in the face of opposing facts demolishes any credibility the poster may have had.

I did not draw conclusions, nor state that I knew entire stories, nor even that the church was denied a permit. I said that the mosque got a permit and the church did not. That is not the same as you said.

Excuse me? Was it not you who stated, "…an established church that has applied for and not been given permits to rebuild, yet the Mosque had no problems. This is a function of political correctness not only running amok, but being very selective in doing so." Are you claiming that the bolded quote is not, in fact, a conclusion, and a personal one at that?

It is nice that you tell others about knee-jerk reactions I made, but since you know nothing about me or my knowledge of anything, your statement is not valid at best, a lie at worst.

This statement is terminally flawed. I know what you posted here. With regards to the specific topic at hand, two possibilities exist:
1. You knew nothing about the history of building permits for the Greek Orthodox Church, and your allegation is due to personal beliefs and a failure do do appropriate research.
2. You DO know the facts of the situation, but you chose to fabricate an allegation anyway.

I know enough about the Church vs the Mosque and the path to solution both took, and the support they got from whom.

Enough perhaps for some people, but reasonable people without an existing prejudice likely want to know the complete story:

1. The land where the permits were denied is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The church does NOT own this site.

2. The church still has rights to build on the land that they own, but they did not want to do so and have filed no intentions. That existing site was too small to support the six-fold expansion in square footage that they wanted, including a 9/11 museum on the first floor, and a huge golden dome, the vision of the Bishop, which they did not have before.

3. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey offered to exchange land with the church. They offered a parcel that is seven times larger than the old site, and sweetened the offer with an additional $20 million dollars to the Greek Orthodox Church to defray the costs of the new building.

4. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey offered to contribute a further $40 million to construct an explosion-resistant basement for the new church. (The offered land sits over a screening area for vehicular traffic into the former WTC site area).

5. The St. Nicholas Greek Orthdox Church accepted the offer of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 2008.

6. Subsequent to that agreement, the Church started adding additional terms, such as the requirement that they be allowed to review (and potentially approve) detailed plans for the secure vehicle screening area. The Port Authority declined to give the church detailed security plans. The agreement eventually disintegrated.

7. The Church's own website links to an article in the NY Times (whom they apparently find an acceptable) that says the delays in building the church are typical of building delays at the WTC site. Among other statements in this article is " The church wants the Authority to provide roughly $55 million toward the estimated $75 million cost of rebuilding St. Nicholas. The Port Authority in turn wants the church to scale back its plans, move the location slightly and raise more money privately."


The information above can be easily verified by anyone with an interest in the truth.

It should be eminently clear any belief that the reason the Greek Orthodox Church does not have a building permit today is because of "a function of political correctness not only running amok, but being very selective in doing so", is misguided, at best. A heartfelt apology would go a long way towards convincing me that the allegation was a mistake born of blindly following unsubstantiated internet posts, instead of something much worse.

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

yet another diffusion. The tingle up my leg man is not objective, not a reporter, he is a cheer leader who said he feels it is his job to help the president accomplish his objectives. That is not a statement of someone who might criticize or be fair or balanced.

Answer the question.

WHICH question did you pose directly to ME that I didn't answer?
You didn't answer MY question posed directly to YOU about Olbermann and the NY Times (In case you conveniently forgot: what did you find inaccurate about the content? If you distrust those sources, which sources are acceptable to you?).

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

WHICH question did you pose directly to ME that I didn't answer?
You didn't answer MY question posed directly to YOU about Olbermann and the NY Times (In case you conveniently forgot: what did you find inaccurate about the content? If you distrust those sources, which sources are acceptable to you?).

Here we go, in circles again. Look back at the posts, and read.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

...
Who is it that regularly thumps his chest about the importance of taking personal responsibility for one's behavior. This guy's sign suggests he supports personal responsibility. http://media.collegepublisher.com/me...s/fo82dh87.jpg , but I can't read the fine print. Does it say "for everyone else"?

Why is it that I have to post this again. Couldn't you have just fessed-up in a manly fashion without me having to re-post? By now, you know the truth about St. Nicholas, yet you're not retracting your allegation, which you made as a statement of fact. That makes it a lie. Man up.

----------------------------------------------------------

I guess you're right. I cannot imagine how I felt that I got insults.

I know what I said I know. Just because you don't know what I do, does not mean I don't know it. Just because I did not tell you, does not mean I don't know it. I already said in previous posts that I did not and do not post all that I know, but do often post questions or things to think about, not just propaganda, or conclusions.

If you don't like what I post, go away and have a nice day. Don't feel threatened or the need to attack my manhood. You may find that some people do not like it.

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

WHICH question did you pose directly to ME that I didn't answer?
You didn't answer MY question posed directly to YOU about Olbermann and the NY Times (In case you conveniently forgot: what did you find inaccurate about the content? If you distrust those sources, which sources are acceptable to you?).

Originally Posted by KSagal

Here we go, in circles again. Look back at the posts, and read.

I did, unsuccessfully, that's why I asked the above. But you are being evasive. This is not a dialogue, this is ducking & weaving. So I'm done playing this game - it is pointless.