timesjoke

A Muslim soldier from Texas who joined the U.S. Army last year now wants to leave the military, claiming he is a conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies. Pfc. Naser Abdo, a 20-year-old infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., filed for conscientious objector status in June because his faith and the military simply don't mix, he told FoxNews.com. The Army has deferred his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan. "Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare," Abdo said. "And it's not a religion of terror. As a Muslim, we stand against injustice, we stand against discrimination, and I feel it's my duty as an individual to do this." Abdo, the Texas-born son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother, said his relatives and wife stand by his decision and that he will likely refuse to deploy if his application for CO status is denied. "I was more faithful to God before I joined the military and that's what kind of stirred me," he said. Military duties have really consumed every part of my day and did not allow me time to involve myself with the Islamic community to maintain what duties I felt that I owed God. This is really what made me come to the conclusion that I'm not ready to die.... "I knew that if I went to Afghanistan and, God forbid, something were to happen, that my faith was so weak that I wouldn't be admitted into heaven…. "The conclusion I came to is that I can't participate in the U.S. military, including any war it's involved in or any war it will be involved in in the future," he said. Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly DeWitt said Abdo's deployment has been deferred, but according to Army regulations he may be deployed to Afghanistan at any time like other members of his unit. "The Army recognizes that even in our all-volunteer force, a soldier's moral, ethical or religious beliefs may change over time," an Army statement read. "The Army and Fort Campbell has procedures in place for soldiers who declare themselves to be conscientious objectors and who apply for conscientious objector status." According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Koran as reasons to seek separation from the Army. "I realized through further reflection that God did not give legitimacy to the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any war the U.S. Army would conceivably participate in," he wrote. J.E. McNeill, an attorney and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War, a Washington-based group that defends the rights of conscientious objectors, said it's difficult to predict the chances that Abdo's application will be approved. But on the surface, she said, it appears Abdo's case meets the standard for conscientious objector status. "What he has to show is that he's opposed to war in any form," she said. "So the question is, is he opposed to any war or is he opposed to [iraq and Afghanistan]?" Applications for conscientious objectors -- defined by Army Regulation 600-43 as a person who is "sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical, or sociological) beliefs, to participating in war in any form" -- can take up to six months to process. Approval rates in the Army over the last seven years have averaged 58 percent. Across all U.S. military branches, 53 percent of conscientious objector status applications were approved from 2002 through 2006. Of the 1.4 million enlisted U.S. military personnel as of Sept. 30, 2009, less than half of 1 percent identified themselves as Muslim, according to military statistics, and roughly the same rate of U.S. Army soldiers identified themselves as Muslim. Religious affiliation for military personnel currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan was not available since servicemembers are not required to disclose that information. Citing Army regulations, Abdo's attorney, James Branum, said Abdo will be interviewed by a chaplain and a psychologist prior to an informal hearing with an investigating officer, who will recommend whether to approve or deny the application. If the claim is denied, Branum said Abdo could re-file with new evidence; seek to take the matter to a federal civilian court; refuse to deploy or drop the matter altogether. He acknowledged that Abdo could go to jail if he refuses to obey orders to deploy. "We're trying to avoid that kind of showdown," Branum told FoxNews.com. "At this moment, Abdo is in a place where he's not going to violate his conscience." Branum said he's received a "fair number" of emails regarding Abdo's case, some of which he said included death threats against the soldier and suggestions that his citizenship be revoked. Abdo, for his part, said he has endured harassment, discrimination and intimidation due to his religious beliefs since joining the military, particularly during basic training at Fort Benning in Georgia. He also claimed to be the target of "resentment" from fellow soldiers due to his prayer schedule. "Some of them would say I hate Jews, some of them even asked me, 'Would you kill your own family? Are you sure you're not on the wrong side?'" Abdo said. "It was daily. It was daily for sure." A website detailing Abdo's situation has resulted in roughly 15 donations totaling about $250 for his legal defense. He's also received dozens of messages protesting his decision, which he said were "disgusting and hateful." "You make me sick," read one message. "You make everyone I know sick." Another message read: "I am not sure why you joined the Army to begin with, but as an Army Wife here at Fort Campbell, KY, I wouldn't want someone like you deploying with MY husband. It's good to stand by your religion and beliefs and I would be lying if I said I understood what they are, because I don't." Abdo said he understands the dissension. "By no means am I expecting a standing ovation," he said. Okay, so one year ago he joined the Army, with all the thousands of jobs he could have taken he decided he wanted to join an airborne unit specifically designed to parachute soldiers into battle. He claimes he was a more devoted Muslim before but now he has less time to put into his faith and yet back when he joind he still wanted to be a combat soldier????????? I'm sorry but none of that makes sense to me, many Muslims and other faith people who don't desire to kill join the military and go for jobs that are not combat related. I remember a Muslim who worked in supply when I was stationed in Colorado serving with the 4th ID and he openly admitted he picked supply as a job because his faith would not let him kill people. So why did this supposed devout Muslim go out of his way to choose the most violent and combat related job in the military one year ago and now suddenly he says his faith does not let him be in the military? It sounds to me that he got scared or he has been turned to support the radicals we are fighting and now he wants out for those reasons, not because he was ever so devoted to his faith he could not serve. He admitted himself his devotion to his faith was stronger before he joined the military so if at that strength he had no issue with fighting in a war, why have issues now when his faith is weaker?

I am starting to agree with you. If your providing a vessel for these illegal images to travel through your computer and on to other users then you certainly have committed the crime. I have a question for you, what ever happened to adults taking responsibility for their own actions? It seems that the new American dream is "how can I get away with sh!t". I have no sympathy for someone who knows they are helping to distribute illegal images and are just trying to skirt the law and get away with it. Your distributing the illegal images, period. If I was on a jury listening to that weak defense I would shake my head at how stupid the guy must think people are and find him guilty in the shortest time allowed. Hell, your openly admitting you know it was wrong by going through the special and complex actions to try and create the "appearance" of being legal. If you thought spreading the images around was okay why go through so many hoops and twists? No, you know your breaking the law and your involved in the spreading of illegal images, so the person in question needs to be held accountable.

Sure, you make those claims but then you help people like Obama get into office so the results of your actions are progressive and have nothing to do with honoring the constitution. By the way, how exactly are you supporting the constitution by making a false claim that Muslims condemn the terrorists? You have any idea how many very prominent Muslims with real political power do not fight against terrorists besides this one imam in question? Of course this specific imam is not alone, most of the Muslim leadership also show a great deal of support for terrorists in how they see their actions as a religious sacrifice: A "UNIFIED" voice against terrorist activities is what is needed. As eddo pointed out, all religious leaders speak out against anything that can be even slightly connected to their faith but only the Muslims hedge their bets and some speask against while other more powerful leaders either speak to support the terrorist actions or claim to not want to be political and refuse to take sides. But that refusal to take sides is actually taking sides, it is a choice to not be against the terrorists and that is a kind of support. But, the Muslims are not alone, it seems even many Libertarians like you and Ron Paul feel the same way, Ron Paul even admitted in a public debate that it was the policies of America that caused the terrorists to attack us. But at the same time even more attacks have been done in places like France who bend over backwards for Muslims and they certainly never invaded their Countries so how is it you Libertarians believe you can draw a connection between our policies and their attacks? Just looking at the facts of all the different targets these Islamic followers have selected over the years, we see that they attack people who help them just as much as those they claim have harmed them. Why? Progressives and now even Libertarians have gotten fooled by the idea that these terrorists are being honest about their motives. Why is it you believe someone who is willing to kill a child on purpose for 'shock value' is also at the same time someone who would not lie to you? More and more hugo, you prove you have more in comon with the progressives than real conservatives.

While viewing the pictures, these files do make it to America even if just temp files and cashing files, technically you did store them locally.

Did he? http://www.omaha.com...S97/708319913/0 First. I don't like what the WBC people are doing. I'm offended by it but they have the right to do so. The First Amendment isn't there to protect kind or polite speech. So, let's say your wife is murdered in your home by a bunch of whacked out PeTA people because your wife wears leather shoes. A few years later PeTA buys the property next to where you live (assuming no zoning violations) and intends to build an "information center" to share with the community all the good their organization does, on the property right by where PeTA people slaughtered your wife, because of their radical PeTA beliefs. Seeing how you don't have any reason to be offended by this, at what point do you bring over the basket with "welcome to the neighborhood" baked goods? It's really amazing how many times I can argue your point (this specific one you keep making) into oblivion, and you still act like it's fact. So that first PETA group are actually not really part of it, they're just nutcases who are using PETA to feel justified in killing your wife. PETA comes out and says that person was wrong. Anybody who targets civilians is wrong. 9 years later, they build an information center two blocks away from your house, where you can't even see it. Are you offended? eddo made a great point on this, Muslim leaders do not stand unified against terrorist actions so that is why your example is way, way off base. hugo as usual tried to join your progressive side but he failed miserably because as with this specific imam in question, he completely refuses to condemn terrorists as bad or evil. When asked over and over if groups like Hamas are terrorists groups, he says he refuses to "take sides", well by refusing to caLL them what they are, he actually has taken a side, one of supporting the terrorists indirectly if not directly.

I don't paint you as anything, you prove yourself to be exactly what you are by your own words and actions. You said yourself that you did not feel anything at all after you found out about the 9/11 attacks because it did not hurt you personally: Random attacks like the ones you make at me? Did I ever try to point you to an onion article in the attempt to be insulting to you kid? You have tried to counter my comments but everything you try to say is based on your political twist to offer excuses. I use facts, like the imam's own words where he supports terrorists activities and refuses to take a solid stand against terrorist groups and you only make excuses for why supposed good Muslims don't fight against their terrorist elements..... Everything in your posts is progressive political correct garbage designed not to be logical but instead designed to try and make those who don't agree with your political stands look bad by telling in some cases complete lies and attacking the messenger while diverting attention away from the message. This imama did say that terrorists are just trying to get attention, this imam does refuse to identify terrorist groups as terrorists, this imam refuses to even discuss where the finding is comming from, now what does he have to hide on that Joker? Didn't read it? You need to go back and reread what you said, I may not like what someone says but I take the time to read everything at least two times before I respond to it, the only poster here I rarely read their comments is Wez, because I know he does not really mean what he says, his posts are 100% designed to try and pick fights. You said I had no right to be concerned about this terrorist monument because I did not live in New York, my reply to your claim I should keep my nose out of it was that any attack on American soil should be very personal and the business of every American who cares about their Country. Just because you don't care, that does not mean the rest of Americans can't care. Putting words in your mouth? Like when you claimed I said "all" muslims were terrorists? You put words in my mouth at least 20 times in this thread and yet you claim I did that to you? I used your own words Joker, "YOU" said you did not feel anything from the 9/11 attacks, not me, all I did was comment on your own words. You even said Americans should not be allowed to comment on the Mosque if we did not live in New York, obviously you don't see America as a single entitity with a unified "family" concept. You and your family was not hurt so you don't care that this monument to the terrorist attack is built....... Muslims do not seperate faith/politics/every day life. Everything in their life "IS" their faith, so even if they are calling it a Muslim community center, that still means it is a Mosque. But as I already pointed out, the greatest usage of this space will be specifically for Islam worship, so that does in fact make it a Mosque on our standards of usage as well. If you choose to be self blinded by your progressive need to be politically correct over reality, fine, but don't expect everyone in America to also blind themselves to help you with your progressive agenda. Like? Really? You gonna devote that much emotion to your Country Joker? I Love America Joker, this is my home and I will gladly defend it with my life. I have served in the military and my son is currently serving in the Marines because of his love for America and sense of duty to the place that made freedom possible for the entire world. If freedom exists in this world, America made that possible, but you only "LIKE" this Country? Yes, a few mistakes have been made but those mistakes are extrememly tiny and insignificant when set beside our victories. You refuse to see those victories because you need excuses to put America down and find excuses to change America into your progressive vision for her. Let me give you this quote again, this is an important thing about America you seem to not understand: "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." Why are progressives and liberals so ashamed of their possitions they try to avoid being described as what they are? I'm not ashamed or hurt if you call me a conservative, but call a progressive a progressive and they cry like a baby......

They are one and the same. You think you should be able to be violent toward someone because you don't like what they say or are offended, but another group is out of line when they speak up against building a Mosque near Ground Zero because the are offended by it there. Well said IWS, and you busted his double standard wide open.

It made me delete some of the quotes as being too many but I am sure you can figure out what I was responding too. So because "YOU" were not directly harmed, your feel therew is nothing to be concerned about? By the way, where did I ever say "ALL" muslims are terrorists? What I did say is "ALL" muslims are not standing against terrorists who are using their religion to do some very bad things and until all these "good muslims" stand together against the radicals, this Islam problem will never stop. So was saving all of Europe and the middle east from being taken over one of those things that pissed them off at us? Whas providing 70% of their food for free one of the things that pissed them off? Bin Laden would have died during the invasion from Russia if not for us. Here is the biggest problem with progressives, you want to believe a terrorist like Bin Laden is honest at his core, that everything he said as to "why" he did what he did was true but it was all lies Joker, he told you and the world what would gain him the most support and guess what, here you are defending his actions so his lies worked, you swallowed the lies and are seeing his actions as justified or at least he got you guys to show him empathy, that man killed thousands of innocent lives to include the mnost vulnerable in society, our children and you thing someone who "intentionally" targets children should be trusted at his word? And those same parents gave you life, with the exception of pure abuse there is little a parent could have done to you for you to hate them and this is my point of how your exclusively ugly and negative about America. You are a progressive, not just based on this conversation but based on everything you have posted your clearly a progressive but the real queation is why do progressives/liberals act like calling them what they are is an insult to them? You can call me a conservative all day long and not one time will I think that title is negative because while I am not 100% conservative in all things (I would like to see higher education for 4 years be free while eliminating most other forms of welfare as an examome), conservative is still very close and I feel honored to be called that. After saving all their lives Joker? All of the Middle East would now be destroyed and remade if not for America, specifically Afganistan and Bin Laden would not exist if not for America, you have to get past this need to believe those who love to kill babies of the "infidels" are trustworthy. Do you want to know the "real" reason Bin Laden turned radical muslim? For power. Check out some of his interviews and see a man in love with his own power. Everything he said was simply excuses to exercise that power. Many sick people thrive on the fear they know they instill in other humans, Bin Laden became one of those people. Nice dodge there Joker. Where did I ever say they declared war on us? While all of Afganistan did not declare war, they provided the infrastructure and political base that allowed it to happen. The same is true for all radical Islam, while only a few commit the attacks, the support from the general population is needed to provide recruitment and other support like supplies and money for them to succeed. Where did I ever say trying to fix problems is bad? America is not perfect, but our good parts far, far, far outshines the mistakes and if we get stuck in only looking at the faults as you and your fellow progressives love to do, then we will end up not doing the good for fear of not wanting to make a mistake. We can't live in a bubble of fear Joker. "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." By refusing to completely place the blame on the Muslims who did the attack, by accepting excuses and showing them unflinching understanding you give them the support they crave, your the guy they are trying to reach, and it seems like they have succeeded. My point about America is while we have made a few mistakes, we more than balance those mistakes with much, much greater good where without that good the world would be a much worse place to live. What good have the terrorists done to try and offset their bad? Did you see radical muslims defend Germany from invasion? Did Muslims liberate France? Look back at all the good America has done and tell me again that any group should feel justified in trying to stop the good works of America. I admit there have been a few mistakes, but I don't condemn all of America for those mistakes and I allow myself to see the greater good. Where did I say they would have goatse'd themselves? Without our help they would have failed, but that does not mean they were not giving it their all. But only you are trying to say America deserved to be attacked, if we do as you progressives like to do and believe a terrorist would never lie, then why not use your same example and ask why all of America deserves to be punished for the actions only a couple politicians ordered? If their problem is with specific people, why not restrict their attacks on those targets? Because they can't? That is enough justification to attack anyone else they can reach? Well if you buy that arguement then why not do the same back at them? If you think that is reasonable tactics for terrorists to follow would you support America striking at anyone we can reach while the terrorists are hiding? They don't need all 1.6 billion to attack, they just need them to not get in the way and provide a little support, and you just admitted that there were Islamic communities helping them so there you go. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ Honor killings are very much a part of Islamic culture and religion, I can provide a few things from the Quran if you need me to. He certainly did 'go nuts' and as he went nuts he followed a long trend of honor killings in the Islamic history. ] He was already religious Joker, that was his possition all along to show Islam in a better light so his belief structure was well established, and his reaction to his wife leaving him was also nothing new to Islam. You paint yourself as a progressive by your progressive possitions and attitudes you show everyone, just like I show my conservative side. Fine, if this is not a Mosque, then simply have the developer agree to not include the mosque that you claim is not important and nobody will have anything to complain about.....right? Of course it is a mosque, hey, did you know women are not allowed to use a mosque the same way as men? Again, any attack on American soil is the concern of all Americans, if you can't understand that your need to search your soul a little deeper. I am not saying they should not build a building, I am saying a mosque is insensitive and intentionally hurtful. A lot more than 20 Muslims have been involved in terrorist attacks and you already admitted the Muslim communities do show these same terrorists support even if they are not directly attacking anyone. My point is they need to police their own radicals better, to at least show a unified voice against the radical elements. Personal attacks on me will not get you very far, but who is not trying to lump dissent into one package? Hm. Never said they weren't terrorists. He didn't want to call them terrorists. Which, since he travels to the area every once in awhile, not making enemies of a group who attacks civilians would be a good idea, right? And that is why terrorists still exist in such large numbers, even those who are considered "moderate" or "good" Muslims refuse to take sides against the terrorists ans until that day comes, we will never find a solution to ending the violence. We need the Muslim leaders to show a united front against terrorists and as long as they are like this guy, then they are all part of the problem. This imam does not have a 'wider view', he is simply making up excuses so he does not have to go against what he really supports. So as I said, if the Mosque is not the central reason for the structure, simply exclude it from the construction and all is fixed....right? But I don't think they will do that, sure the building has other rooms and functions but it is my belief that is all a smoke screen for the building's true purpose as a monument to the successful terrorist attack on New York and America. And that is my point, why should one or two man be allowed to take away land to give to another man like Donald Trump to build a hotel but millions of people are ignored when their voice is clear thay do not want the Islamic terrorist monument to be built? Do these officials represent the people or themselves? This is an example of morals, the decision to place a terrorist monument to 9/11 is insensitive and hurtful. I gave you a few other examples of similar 'insensitive monuments' such as building a monument to the Enola Gay in Japan, no matter where you put it, it would be an insult. So saying terrorists are just getting attention the only way they can and refusing to condemn terrorist attacks and terrorist groups is a Muslim that is not an extremist? What does a Muslim have to do in your eyes to be part of the problem? You already admitted that some Muslim communities show support to the terrorists, well this guy is also showing them support and guess what, where do you think the money for the Mosque is comming from? He refuses to say where it is comming from so he clearly has something to hide. Where did I ever say all Muslims are violent? But even you admitted the Muslim communities support the violents by protecting and supporting the terrorists. We have also demonstrated the Muslim leaders show support of terrorists. As I said before, If the Muslim communities do not reject the violence and those who commit it, it will never stop. Facts? Everything I have said is facts, like the way this imam is showing support to terrorists, you on the other hand are not offering facts, your offering excuses for terrorists and this imam who refuses to condemn terrorists. You are saying America brought the attack on itself and deserved it, your not offering facts, your offering the standard progressive montra to always blams America for everything. The only thing you have offered as a "fact" from your prospective is that this building is not a place of worship. I do not agree, in my opinion the inclusion of the Mosque is very much part of the building and part of the discussion. Sure there will be other facilities in the building but you can't make any claims as to what percentage of it's usage will be for other things than the Mosque. Tell me this Joker, if all the other segments of the building are never used and the only usage is for the religious services each day, several times a day, is it still a community center or is it a Mosque? I can hold religious services in a field, just like I can exercise in that same field. So how do we define the field? I am making an informed decision that being as the muslims have to play many times a day, that the mosque will get greater usage on a pecentage basis than the rest of the building so that will make that space a Mosque.

If he had lost his leg "protesting" war you can bet he would get his parking permit.......gotta love progressive mindsets, he "may get better"? Just incredible, lol.

I don't know enough about him to say all that but he does seem very disconnected from his Country and shows more compassion for those who want to inflame and attack America than those who actually love America and want her to prosper. Wez I understand, he is only interesated in trying to start a fight, that is why I ignore his comments, he is not interested in debating or sharing ideas, he only wants strife and lives to call people ugly names and such, no point in wasting my time on that crud. I don't think Joker is a bad guy, I think he is similar to Bender where both most likely work hard and provide for their own life but for some reason they both feel they need to help certain people gain enough power so they can "fix" the lives of everyone else using the heavy hand of the Federal Government to force us to live exactly the way they want us to live. Progressives seem to believe 99% of Americans should not be allowed to live the way they want to live and that the other 1% (as long as it is them) should set the rules and micromanage that other 99%. They live in fear where failure must be limited but while they limit failure, they can't understand that they at the same time limit success. They see someone who is "rich" and conservative as underserving of what they have but someone who is "rich" and donating to their political campaigns deserve their money and get special treatments. The really big problem is they truly believe they can tax their way into Eutopia. California is the best example of what happenes when progressives get their way, businesses like EA games and even ebay are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to relocate in places like Utah, they are being driven away by a out of control progressive leadership that does not see what they are doing as wrong. Tax, Tax, Tax, Tax, and Tax some more, never showing the least bit of concern for the fact that they are wasting money faster than it can be produced. Remember the story of the Golden Goose............ But still this 'politically correct' thing with progressives surprises me, I have no idea why some things are too dangerious to speak against with these guys. Women's rights are normally a huge issue, but let a prominent and very politically connected Muslim perform a honor killing on his wife that wanted to leave him and suddenly not one progressive will speak against that Muslim practice. A christian child says a prayer in school and they want that child expelled and the parents investigated but a school sets aside special classes and times for the many prayers of a muslim child and not one word from these same progressives. G-damn America......right?

Don'y forget the trees Bender. There are people packed under the trees, Based on what I have heard of non-political groups (I think anyone trying to lie and say it was under 100,000 are clearly showing they are no longer a new group and are instead progressive activists) there was between 400 to 500 thousand people there. Not a bad turnout considering Bech is not running for a political office and this was not even geared or advertised as a political event. Of cours they were also just a bunch of racists.....right Bender?

I guess you do, lol. So you have to change the scenario to try and argue with me? In your first example you saw what you believed to be an illegal item but no visual of people or the destruction of evidence, and there is the difference. Under the belief that evidence is being destroyed you can force entry to secure that evidence but that was not what you described in your first coment and under that first example you "count not" have entered the dwelling without a warrant. Instead of always trying to one-up me, why not just admit that the police are supposed to have limits on their power? Actually your again trying to change your example.....what did you say? " to serve you law suit or divorce papers" Law enforcement is compelled to serve legal court papers, they are allowed to charge for that duty but they cannot refuse to serve them because it is a function of the Courts to gurantee service. While your delivering a courts summons ect...your functioning under the umbrella of the courts, depending on the State, this even allows the officer to tresspass on private property and other abilities that under any other situation he could not do. Don't let IWS fool you guys, law enforcement would not be doing anything they did not have to do, and the entity that forces them to do it is the courts. Now, that is not to say they are the "only" people doing this, professional process servers do exist and these guys make very good money, and they also exist because of the courts and how provable service is a requirement of the legal system. Without being able to prove delivery, you could never hold anyone accountable for refusing to appear or following other Court orders.

And yet you defend the right to build a terrorist victory monument in New York at ground zero? Free speach and all that Bender? I have to admit, this is the one wild card I never saw comming with the progressives/liberals. Usually you guys are all for attacking people who oppress women and you certainly hate religion in almost all ways but even the ACLU refuses to file lawsuits against Muslims who pray in schools, it seems the need to be politically correct has over ridden every other agenda you guys have. In this case you guys have hitched your wagon to the Muslims and no matter how crazy they act you will never be able to bring yourselves to say anything against them or even ask them to exert more pressure on their more 'energetic' members. Refusing to speak against Muslim prayer in school has to be the biggest surprise to me though, I guess only Christian prayer is the end of all society these days, lol.

Everyone who is close to my life have some connection to a belief in God. They don't all share my specific views, but I find it better to share the special and important segments of my life with people who see life as something truly special, a gift, and a journey greater than any other journey man can have. In this case I want my doctor to see me as more than a number on a piece of paper. I want to have a doctor that can see the 'quality of life' as being just as important as extending life.

I really did not fully think you meant all that uneducated garbage until I saw this: So you felt nothing? Not even pity for your fellow Americans and their families? You seem ready to show compasion and understanding to terrorists, you even claim lik eso many other radical Socialists that 9/11 was caused by America, you blame America instead of those who actually did the killing. And in that you have great company, You, Obama, Harry Reid, Pelosi, pretty much every progressive in America sees America as "bad" or at fault for everything and you constantly want to only point out what you see as bad while never admitting the much larger good that America does in the world. So American actions forced these terrorists to attack us Joker? Really? At the time of the attack, America was providing around 70% of the food that was "given for free" to Afganistan, and we helped Afganistan fight off invasion from Russia, hundreds of millions of Afganistan people were alive and eating well because America did not look away, because America did get involved. How about those saved lives Joker? But you don't know about that fact now do you Joker? Or is it better to say you don't "want" to know about that, all your interested in is looking to America's faults and justifying the actions of terrorists because that is the progressive way of tearing down America so it can be rebuilt in the Socialist way? Well guess what, there are still a few proud Americans alive and willing to fight against the Progressives like you and Obama. We can admit we have made mistakes but still see the greater degree of good that America has done and how most of the free world is only free today because of America. All of Europe and most of Asia would now be divided in two groups if not for America, so forgive me and the majority of Americans who choose to remember our good deeds over our mistakes. Now, aside from your religion/America bashing we still get back to the main points: 1- America was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim believers and only an idiot would believe they did not have help in the Muslim comunities to stay hidden and train for this attack. The radical elements of Islam are not that far seperated from the mainstream elements of Islam. 2- Even Muzzammil Hassan, the rich Muslim that founded Bridges TV to show Muslims in a "positive light" and was fully imersed in Western society still felt compelled to behead his wife ,Aasiya Z. Hassan, because she dared to leave him and "honor" demanded she die by his hand. Prior to this event, Muzzammil Hassan was considered the very definition of moderate Muslim, funny how fast a moderate can transform into a radical....... 3- This is a Mosque, lots of other fancy stuff too, but this is a house of worship, the house has many rooms, but the number of rooms does not change it's purpose. Trying to divert attention away from this fact proves your not interested in looking at reality, and instead your trying to remake reality into an image that might be accepted by the masses.......typical progressive tactic but again, those of us who know better can easily see past your intentional refusal to admit the facts and identify your biased reasons to try and exclude the fact that this is a Mosque. 4- This is not just an issue for the people of New York. The billions of tax dollars spent to respond to 9/11 was money all Americans paid their tax money for. All the mess that followed to include the stock market crash that cost me over $160,000 in one week made that event a purely American event just like the attack on Pearl Harbor was not just a bad thing that happend at the "Gibraltar of the Pacific". This is about Americans and how they feel about the failures of Muslims to gain control over their radical elements. If people like this imam would publically denounce all terroirsts to include Hamas that he says is not a terrorist group, and to stop making excuses for these terrorists in how he said they were only trying to be heard, then I could support this as some kind of community center and they were trying to bring people together. 5- You still miss the point of Eminent Domain, most likely because you have never been involved in any real reality issues as I have but if a couple guys in City Hall can take away a piece of land to give it to Donald Trump to build a huge Hotel, certainly it would be easy to offer a better use of that power to do as the people want. Almost all Americans are now against this Mosque being built on ground zero (again, you claiming it is not does not make it true, us Americans who actually care about America and feel connected to it can make that decision) so following that desire is easily defendable in a court of law. I used the stripper example for a reason, there are thousands of case law examples all supporting the right of comunities to block buildings like strip clubs for community moral reasons, to include about 25 cases in New York that made it to the State supreme court so the City can easily block this and win, it would be a waste of money for the Muslim extremists to try and fight it to be honest. Do Americans have the right to set the moral possitions of their Country or not? Do Americans have the right to reject a monument to the terrorists of 9/11? Do Americans have the right to reject radical and violent groups who hide behind laws that they don't themselves respect or share in their own circles? Should Americans be forced to conform to the beliefs of progressives who see America as the instigator of 9/11? Should all Americans give up their right to their beliefs just because a few progressives think we are all just stupid and racists? Sorry Joker, completely converting all Americans into sniveling progressive cowards is not going to be that easy.........

Being as you completely missed how Eminent Domain was relivent to the discussion I don't think you need to now pretend like your some kind of all knowing professor. Of course I know it goes both way, but all laws are created in the concept of serving the public, and the vast majority of all Americans (they are the public they are supposed to serve) say they don't want the terrorist monument to be built on grond zero. If I build a swimming pool next to a Catholic Church, does the church stop being a church? This is a mosque, a fancy one to be true, but still a mosque. There are around a hundred of them in the New York area and the mosque a couple blocks away from this site is at very low capacity so the area does not need a new mosque for the Muslims in that area to follow their faith. So if they don't need the space to worship, what other reason are they building it? In my opinion, based on how this guy is defending the actions of terrorists and refuses to say where the money is coming from I would believe the reason for building it is clear. And the only peopel who will ever be able to change this is the Muslims themselves, just like it was Christians who got their bad elements to stop. Tell that to the Muslims who are doing it. No, so they can appease almost all of Americans who are against allowing the terrorist monument to be built on ground zero. The few who want it to be built are all progressives who believe America is bad in general or those who are being politically correct.

First step is to establish she was abused by Disney, there are stages to these things Joker. If she planned to just conform to the dress code she would already have done that. If she was a devout Muslim who truly believed she had to wear this thing as part of her religion she would never have taken it off in the first place. This would be like a true follower of Sikhism cutting his hair to get a job, it just does not happen. What these true followers do is find their path in life that allows their specific religious faith, in fact almost all of the devout Muslims I know own their own business, and their comittment to their faith seems to also lead to great comittment to their business.

I believe the "intent" is to let the officer do what any normal citizen would do and to have the same freedoms a normal citizen would have in "visiting" the person and residence. I don't believe installing tracking devices on private property would fall under that description. But even with that example you could not kick down the door to confiscate what you believed to be a pot plant, you can use your observations and assumptions as the basis for the search warrant and the Judge will almost always accept that in the example your giving, but I have also seen many cases where even those observations from a window did not always give the officer an automatic search warrant. But are they not operating under the power of the courts while delivering those court documents?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/index.html?hpt=T1 (CNN) -- Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers. When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show. Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer. But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. "They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission," said his lawyer, Harrison Latto. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice -- in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month. The judges who affirmed Pineda-Moreno's conviction did so without comment. Latto says the Ninth Circuit decision means law enforcement can place trackers on cars, without seeking a court's permission, in the nine western states the California-based circuit covers. The ruling likely won't be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant. Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno's case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant's driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called "creepy" and "underhanded." "The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent. "I think it is Orwellian," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights. "If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant," he said, "the police could place a tracking device on any individual's car -- without having to ever justify the reason they did that." But supporters of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court's approval. "You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street -- that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. "It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS." He says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property. "You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy." I would not have as much against this if the tracking devices were put on the vehicle while it was in a public place, but if the law enforcement officers have to tresspass on private property to attach this device on the vehicle, to me that should not be allowed. Granted, the general rule of tresspass is without a fence and closed gate, there is an "assumption" that visitors are welcome, and I partly agree, so under that assumption, the owners of the property feel it is reasonable for people to visit on a social setting. I do not believe it can be assumed that the lack of a fence with a closed gate means you welcome the public to do whatever they want to do while on your property like swim in your pool or use your lawnmower. I believe a reasonable person would understand that the property owner in most cases does not invite police officers to install tracking devices on their vehicles. A reasonable possition is to believe the activity is not wanted so to force that action on the owner should require a Judge's permission.

I think polls can be informative but you have to look at how the polls are conducted and what kind of people would have been involved to see how accurate the poll is compared to general society. If this poll was conducted in the line of cars waiting to pick up elementary school children in each State, then only California and maybe a couple others would show a great deal of support for recreational drugs. In this case these polls are mostly directed at those who would be stoners anyway so of course the results show that, lol.

thank you. I support the right of communities to have the kind of environment they want, this is about the will of the people, not one or two progressives kissing behinds and being politically correct. Murder is only illegal in America because as a society of people we have decided murder is wrong, this was not a idea imposed by one or two politicians but by society as a whole. America is not supposed to be mob rule, I give you that, but it is also not supposed to be a dictatorship where our American values and needs are set asibe just because a couple politicians want to "look" politically correct. This is why I gave you a couple examples of how non-terrorists can show support to terrorist actions but not be a terrorist themselves, your again pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting this is a valid point. Did you see the quote I posted from this idiot? He said terrorists are just trying to get attention in the only way they can, as far as I am concerned he is showing support to them too. The idea of putting this monument to terrorists on ground zero is simply obscene. They already have another one a couple blocks away and it has low occupancy, there is no need for this thing other than to rum American's faces into their victory. This is not going to be a residence so I have no idea what your talking about, they don't need this monument to live in.

New immigrants? Please! All sorts of greedy, lazy Americans try to pull that frivolous lawsuit crap, not just 'new' immigrants. As usual you completely missed my point just because you need to always find fault in anything I say. Of course there are lots of greedy Americans doing this, and that was my point, we have evolved from a Nation of responsible people who take care of ourselves to a Nation of lazy idiots with our hands out. My point about new immigrants was the "american dream" USED to be. I have not one thing against a new immigrant comming to America, working hard and paying their share of taxes, that to me has always been the American dream of old, that anyone can find success in America through hard work and self reliance. Joker, same thing for you, you miss the point, she learned in her classes to sue, that "exam" she took did not teach her that she can ignore the established dress code of her employer, lol. If she was truly that deeply religious she would have been wearing the thing before, not now that she has recently learned about filing lawsuits..........

But it was not the pope all by himself, the rest of the leadership as well as thousands of followers all were involved. They were not stupid and not blind followers, they were individuals who made a choice to do very bad things in the name of their religion. I don't blame all Christians but I certainly do believe bad things happen when good people refuse to stand up for what is right. The majority of good Christians let this happen. They had wins and losses but why did they lose? Because they lacked the support of the majority of Christians to win. It is like trying to win a football game with only 5 guys on your side of the ball, unless everyone is on board you will end up fighting a losing battle. These Christians could also had done the "terrorist" thing where fighting them any way you can could go on forever but it was the hearts and minds of the Christians that changed enough to directly stop this mindset of Christians to no longer want to behave that way. This is what needs to happen with the Muslims. They need to offer a unified voice against this terrorist mindset or nothing will ever change. Us "Infidels" can't stop it from the outside, there is no way to appease this monster, only fellow Muslims can slay this monster. Taking a side to support terrorist activities and even said himself he wished he could be a Martyr. My point is even educated and powerful Muslim figures show support for terrorist acts under their religion, that takes these acts clearly into acceptable behaviors in their society and helps to perpetuate terrorist activities in other ways as well. If you justify one attack of innocents under your religion, then obviously you can make the same allowance for other "similar" events. Ghazi Algosaibi and other leaders like him take these actions out of the realm of fanatics and bring it home to the base of their faith. You can't claim these actions are outside when insiders are supporting them. The same people forget it was America who stopped Russia from invading them, it seems they have very selective memories about things like that and yet they ignore the evils fo their own societies where a woman being raped by a man and does not have several male witnesses to prove she is innocent will be stoned to death. Instead of pointing their fingers at America, maybe they could accomplish a lot more in fixing the evils of their own circles first? I wonder if Ghazi Algosaibi has a pretty poem about the greatness of 'honor killing' their daughters? No my friend, the case here is if the "people" (community) or the Government has the right to stop the construction of a building that is not "appropriate" for the area. How is it you cannot understand that point? I think your just playing stupid on this point, you have to see how it is relivent to the discussion of how sometimes the Government steps in to take possession of property and in this case should do so for the will of the people, that would certainly be more reasonable than taking possession of property just to give it to Donald Trump so he can make billions off of that property without having to buy it for a reasonable price from the owner. One of your points was about them having the "right" to build what they wanted on their land, my point was the right to own and build on property is not absolute, you can't seriously expect me to believe your incapable of understanding that, you just don't want to admit I am right. I will say this again, until ALL Muslims take a direct and agressive stand against the radicals in their midst, this problem of Muslim terrorists will never go away. The radical elements among the Christians was cast out, even with the losses of the Crusades, if the general attitues of Christians had not changed against those who conducted themselves in that way had not changed, then they would have simply shown it in other ways. It was the rejection of those actions and mindsets directly that eliminated the radicals from the Christian circles. To date, Muslims have not openly rejected the radicals in their religion, sure a few here and there will say they reject them in a television interview, but even their Quran tells them to lie to the Infidel, I don't care what they say as much as what their actions are and we see every day that the radicals are very safe and protected in their communities. Some Muslim leaders like Ghazi Algosaibi even fan the flames of terrorist activities as being the work of "Myrtyrs", not criminals and if a 'good Muslim' like this will do this in the open, how many will do this and more in private? Until all of the Muslim community steps up to the table and directly fights the terrorist link to their religion, they must be given part of the blame. Muslims like Ghazi Algosaibi are what keep the terrorist groups going and recruiting, not anything America does.

And the thing she attempted first was to file a false lawsuit? Evidence is very clear she never wanted to wear the scarf until recently and now that she just got Citizenship, suddenly she wants to? Is suing someone and getting money you don't deserve the new American Dream? At least to new Immigrants?

And under normal laws you can even have your property taken away and given to someone else to build on it. You have any idea how much land has been taken away from Americans to give to some other American to use for private purposes the City/State/Federal Government prefered over the original owner's usage of that same piece of property? How many times are land owners who want to open strip clubs or bars told no? Why don't they have a right to open any business they want to open without the community speaking out and stopping it? Should the community have a say in the building of a strip club or not? Does the Government hold itself outside of the wants of the public or should that Government follow the wants of that public that elects them? In all cases of Eminent domain you have a couple government people who decide to take away your land then they go through the process. The land owner has the right to fight but in most cases will not be able to win. So why is it a couple Government workers can decide to take away your property or stop your use of your property but millions of residents of the same comunity cannot? What makes the two or three people in Government office better than the millions? These officials are supposed to be representing the people of that community but in this case they are ignoring the will of the people just to be politically correct for the Liberal elite? This issue is no different than the public speaking out against a strip club in a residential area. If you can see where having a strip club next to a elementary school is bad form, then you can understand why a mosque at ground zero is the exact same thing. I would really like you to respond to my point of how this Muslim issue is similar to the Christian issue of the Crusades. Do you consider the Crusades to be connected to Christians or a seperate series of actions by fanatics and they had nothing to do with Christians? I would also like you to respond to my point about people like Ghazi Algosaibi who never attack any innocent but who publically support terrorists and call them all heros and "Myrtyrs". Don't you think Muslims need to get their own people under control just like the good Christians did to stop the Crusades and the mentality that made those actions possible?