jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (10 posts)

Harry, Harry...quite contrary! Mosque or not?

  1. Tom Cornett profile image57
    Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago

    The Senate's top Democrat on Monday came out against plans to build a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, moving away from President Barack Obama on the controversial election-year issue.

    Locked in a tight race, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid became the highest profile Democrat to respond to Obama, who last week backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero. Since his comments Friday, the Democratic president and his aides have worked to explain the statement, which drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

    "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."

    For the first time...I agree with Harry.  smile

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      the 1st amendment only prevents the Federal government from intervening with religion.

      It's impossible to agree with harry because he's simply wrong.

      A state is allowed to legislate pro/against a religion via the powers granted to them through the 10th amendment.

      I'm an atheist and wish my own argument was wrong, but it isn't. I fully support a constitutional amendment denying states the right to legislate against/for a religion, but until then they DO have the power to do so.

      It's disgusting that Harry Reid hasn't read the constitution.

      1. Tom Cornett profile image57
        Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think it was Harry's opinion that the Mosque be built somewhere else.  He may have been referring to the law in general.... ...concerning the constitution and religious issues.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          yes, but harry says that there is an absolute "no government and no religion" clause in the Constitution.

          This is incorrect.

    2. Liberian1847 profile image59
      Liberian1847posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Harry's just trying to save his own butt. Sad that a lot of issues that deeply concern the American people are quickly hijacked by politicians to selfishly water their own political gardens.

    3. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It goes to show you, politicians will do anything to hold onto power, even if they have to eat their young! LOL

      I can't imagine Harry taking such a position seemingly at odds with the President if he wasn't in trouble with his re-election bid.

  2. KFlippin profile image61
    KFlippinposted 6 years ago

    He's just trying to save his congressional butt.  I wouldn't trust a word he says, he has about as much patriotism as a cockroach.

    1. Tom Cornett profile image57
      Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smile  He must have caught the odds in Vegas.

      1. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No doubt!

  3. Ron Montgomery profile image59
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Whomever wins that Senate race, Nevada will be poorly represented.  Angle may even be more Palinesque than Palin - didn't we learn in 2000 that electing morons to positions of power can be very dangerous; funny and entertaining at times, but still dangerous.

 
working