Would it be Fair to Make the Mosque Promoters Post an Insurance Bond?
This would be an insurance forfeiture bond in case the mosque was a source of massive damage to New York City or the people there from Explosion or from Toxic or Radioactive materials of any kind. The insurance bond would be paid for out of the charitable donations that support the Mosque's creation and development. In that part of town, within very close blast range of 25 Federal agencies, two stock exchanges, and two major telecom hubs (one of which handles inter-regional bank check clearances), a bond that included consequential damages, pain and sufferring, loss of life, and loss of commercial use would run at least $500 Billion. So, it could cost $50 Million a year to maintain unless the full sum were put up in cash upfront. This would not be a problem for the muslim world. They get $50 million in oil money from us every week. It would be very helpful to victims of this project if there are any. Keep in mind that no recovery of any kind was ever made from any muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia, for the massive destruction that occurred on 9/11. It being so difficult to recover money from overseas sources after the fact of harm being done, perhaps a bond posted upfront from those overseas sources who will be funding this mosque would be appropriate. Why should American taxpayers have to pick up the tab -- again? We may or may not be able to stop our politicians from doing astonishingly improvident things, but insurance could buffer USA from some small part of the potential consequences of poor decision making by highly confused persons. What do you think. That's my question. Would it be fair to have a bond be posted? My critics so far miss the point. Different automobiles cost different amounts to insure. Same with planes, boats, amusement parks, skating rinks. Premiums are individually related to the risk posed -- it's not one size fits all. Is there a risk that is special to this situation? Well, some muslims do tend to blow things up. To deny that is too absurd even for my opponents, so I assume they accept that simple reality. We have absolutely no way of knowing which muslims may or may not be using or not using the Cordoba House if it is built. Could be just peaceful muslims. Could be terrorist muslims. Could be folks from Hamas there to assemble a nuclear device so that Dr. Ahmedinejad can make good on his threats. We don't know! What do people do when they don't know about a risk? They get insurance. This is not an idea I'm inventing and bringing to you for the first time (like people up in the hollers that have never seen a chair before). This is reason! To: "Common Sense" (ha) The Equal Protection Clause does NOT require that all organizations or building plans be treated equally. It requires only that similarly situated ones be treated equally. So all other religious community centers from religions that claim almost all of the world's terrorists over the past 30 years would have to post a bond. Any of these that were located in extremely high rent areas that are vital to the national security, would have to post a $500 Billion bond. See that's treating everybody equally. Oh oh -- you say there are no other religions that claim almost every terrorist on Earth for the past 30 years? The Buddhists can't say that, nor can the Unitarians, or the B'ahai's or the Shintos. Well this would not be the first time that an insurance premium was tailored to the risk.
Insurance - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's fair only if every other church in the United States had to post a similar bond just in case they were blown up...how much would it cost to insure St. Peter's in NYC for the same amount - I am sure the Vatican has that amount of money just sitting around...what about the National Cathedral in DC or any of the churches near the White House or the Capitol...they could be used in similar fashion. You mistakenly equate the building of a Mosque with the actions of a minority of Muslims. I could do the same and point to the violence in Northern Ireland in clashes between Catholics and Protestants and the various IRA bombings in London. Finally, you could not require them to take out the insurance as there is a Constitutional right to separation between church and state and in this instance, you would be singling out one church.
2 :
its not a mosque, but a community center with a prayer room, like the jewish and catholic ones already in nyc. are you going to require them to post a bond as well?
3 :
That's ridiculous. First, it would violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, as no other church or synagogue must post a bond like that. Second, any building like that would have insurance anyway. And who is "they" getting 50 million a week? Not the ones building this project. You just hate Muslims. I don't like it either, but they have the same rights as everyone else.
4 :
Community Centers qualify for matching funds, I don't want to provide them for any. Liability Insurance is required for many collectives already so , Yes they should be required a Construction Bond & Liability Insurance as well as being denied any US taxpayer funds. ALL of Them not just this Mosque.
5 :
Not fair, because you're singling out one religion. Not possible because: 1. BUILDINGS don't cause massive damage, explosions, toxins, or radiation - those are all caused by people building the buildings, or supplying the materials, or behaving badly. 2. NO insurance is going to cover toxins or radiation. It's a standard exclusion, across the board. 3. A "bond" doesn't work that way. A bond is a three party agreement, with the obligee being the entity that gets paid, the insurance company doing the paying, and the obligor the one who's behavior is guaranteed by the bond. You're talking about insurance, not a bond. 4. Americans pick up the tab, because we vote in politicians that LOVE to spend our money. We ARE able to stop our politicians from behaving badly. Most of us can't be bothered, as indicated by voter turnout polls. 5. Yes, of course there's risk! Islam is absolutely the MOST VIOLENT religion in the world, and the history of the world! Know how the last muslim invasion of Europe was stopped? THE CRUSADES. But here in the USA, my relatives and ancestors have DIED to protect the right of every single person here in this country to worship - or not worship - exactly as they please. 6. I think you're missing one very, very vital point . . . which insurance company would WANT to "insure" a group of muslims funded by terrorist backing organizations, with pro-terrorist spokespersons, against terroristic acts? None I can think of. So it's a moot point. Don't get me wrong. I think the "park 51" location for a mosque is in extremely poor taste. And it boggles my mind, how people can claim that the site is not ground zero. Because it's occupied by a building, which was hit by a plane, flown by a terrorist, on September 11, 2001. Must be some new definition of 'ground zero'.
6 :
I think we should make any Germans moving into the region post a bond too. There are millions of Jews in New York City, and you know what might happens if you let Germans to close to Jews. . . .. OK, I admit that is a dumb thing to say. But no more dumb than your proposal.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Oh YES this swine flu is an act of terrorism, why blow us up when they can use germs and now it is spreading?
Oh YES this swine flu is an act of terrorism, why blow us up when they can use germs and now it is spreading?
Is the swine flu an act of terrorism by one of the horrid groups out there. People have said that it is not, but I do not believe it because even a suicide bomber dies when he blows up, so what easier way to take out people than to spread that swine flu. They have the bomb now, they have the technology WE gave them, so why not wipe everyone out. Haven't heard of a case of this in Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Mexico, New York and California are states that make money and what better place than to spread thru vacation country to us? Need answers NOW!
Current Events - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I believe it is more possible than it happening accidentally.. This virus also seems to complicated to have happened accidentally.. & yes they would never tell you..
2 :
Of course it is Just like it was terrorism in the 1700's, and the other times way back in history when one plague or another killed thousands. Why on earth does some people's minds go into this area when anything comes up that is a little unexpected. How very sad that so many live their lives in fear, fear of anything. You have a problem, and I sincerely suggest that you do something about it before it completely takes over your life and you live in fear and terror for the rest of your days.
3 :
No. Hard to say what you are more misinformed about, terrorism or biology. First of all, terrorist groups have clear goals regarding their local situation, and their attacks reflect that. What would be the purpose of starting a disease that was going to spread world wide, and possibly mutate into something even more dangerous? Especially since the death rate would be far higher in the undeveloped parts of the world where most terrorist groups are found. "They want to kill us all" is propaganda. Secondly, there is no way on Earth that insurgents hiding in a cave somewhere could manufacture something as mind numbingly complex as a flu virus. It would require a world class research facility, which would be incredibly expensive and basically impossible to even build in the parts of the world where terrorist groups are based. Lastly, even if a government did plan on using bioterrorism, the flu is about the last virus they would choose. Why would you choose a weapon that's going to kill our people just as surely as it kills anyone else, and again, especially a weapon that might very well mutate into something even more dangerous in the field? A weapon which is more than likely to kill your researchers and escape into your own population before you can use it? Nope, this is a natural occurrence. In fact Mexico City is where one would expect something like this to arise, high population density including people living in close proximity with animals in unsanitary ways. It's a flu factory, plain and simple. And it spread to the US first because the US is next to Mexico and has a huge amount of cross border travel.
4 :
Its not terrorists. It's some dick that genetically spliced the three DNA's viruses (i mean come on, 3 different swine viruses from 3 different continents just happened to mix?) and then he let it loose on Mexico (probably to test it). Later on whoever created it is probably going to release it in a more important area, create a cure, and then sell the cure for billions of dollars. The reason the virus hasn't spread in the mideast is the same reason it hasn't spread anywhere else, people around there just haven't brought it back to the country...
5 :
If the swine fly has anything to do with being man made.. then it was made from the BIG 3. So you will get their flu shots and then get sick with side effects and pay them more $$ in their hospitals. Ignore the media... it is fear and control.
6 :
You just answered your own question. There is no doubt that I believe that this is an act of terrorism.Think about it, avian flu, s.a.r.s. ebola virus, hell, even a.i.d.s. This may be the new 9/11,but I digress.
Is the swine flu an act of terrorism by one of the horrid groups out there. People have said that it is not, but I do not believe it because even a suicide bomber dies when he blows up, so what easier way to take out people than to spread that swine flu. They have the bomb now, they have the technology WE gave them, so why not wipe everyone out. Haven't heard of a case of this in Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Mexico, New York and California are states that make money and what better place than to spread thru vacation country to us? Need answers NOW!
Current Events - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I believe it is more possible than it happening accidentally.. This virus also seems to complicated to have happened accidentally.. & yes they would never tell you..
2 :
Of course it is Just like it was terrorism in the 1700's, and the other times way back in history when one plague or another killed thousands. Why on earth does some people's minds go into this area when anything comes up that is a little unexpected. How very sad that so many live their lives in fear, fear of anything. You have a problem, and I sincerely suggest that you do something about it before it completely takes over your life and you live in fear and terror for the rest of your days.
3 :
No. Hard to say what you are more misinformed about, terrorism or biology. First of all, terrorist groups have clear goals regarding their local situation, and their attacks reflect that. What would be the purpose of starting a disease that was going to spread world wide, and possibly mutate into something even more dangerous? Especially since the death rate would be far higher in the undeveloped parts of the world where most terrorist groups are found. "They want to kill us all" is propaganda. Secondly, there is no way on Earth that insurgents hiding in a cave somewhere could manufacture something as mind numbingly complex as a flu virus. It would require a world class research facility, which would be incredibly expensive and basically impossible to even build in the parts of the world where terrorist groups are based. Lastly, even if a government did plan on using bioterrorism, the flu is about the last virus they would choose. Why would you choose a weapon that's going to kill our people just as surely as it kills anyone else, and again, especially a weapon that might very well mutate into something even more dangerous in the field? A weapon which is more than likely to kill your researchers and escape into your own population before you can use it? Nope, this is a natural occurrence. In fact Mexico City is where one would expect something like this to arise, high population density including people living in close proximity with animals in unsanitary ways. It's a flu factory, plain and simple. And it spread to the US first because the US is next to Mexico and has a huge amount of cross border travel.
4 :
Its not terrorists. It's some dick that genetically spliced the three DNA's viruses (i mean come on, 3 different swine viruses from 3 different continents just happened to mix?) and then he let it loose on Mexico (probably to test it). Later on whoever created it is probably going to release it in a more important area, create a cure, and then sell the cure for billions of dollars. The reason the virus hasn't spread in the mideast is the same reason it hasn't spread anywhere else, people around there just haven't brought it back to the country...
5 :
If the swine fly has anything to do with being man made.. then it was made from the BIG 3. So you will get their flu shots and then get sick with side effects and pay them more $$ in their hospitals. Ignore the media... it is fear and control.
6 :
You just answered your own question. There is no doubt that I believe that this is an act of terrorism.Think about it, avian flu, s.a.r.s. ebola virus, hell, even a.i.d.s. This may be the new 9/11,but I digress.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
What do you think of this reasoning for US being in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What do you think of this reasoning for US being in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The reasons the United states is in Afghanistan and the reasons they are in Iraq are two different stories. The US made a deal with Saudi Arabia, before, when they had become the most powerful oil country in the world, this is sometimes referred to as "The money laundering affair". The US got Saudi oil and Saudi Arabia got preference in international issues and even financial aid for financing Al Quida for their Afghan war against the Soviets. In turn for oil, the US turned their head and pretended not to know about all the horrible stuff the house of Saud was doing and terrorism they were financing. Later on, the US came to realize that Iraq has got an even larger oil reserve! So since US needs oil they tried to make a similar deal with Saddam like the one made during the Saudi money laundering affair. Since Saddam would not comply with US demands, the US had to find a reason to invade and get what they wanted by force. So the US decided to go and "free the Iraqi people from Saddam" and end his terroristic and cruel practices. While these are in fact, some would say, good enough reasons to invade, they were not the "real reasons". And so now the US is doing some good and trying to help the Iraqi people get back up on their feet and make their new government (one that will comply with US demands). In Afghanistan, the US is fighting the terrorism at the "source". They are going in and attacking the Taliban and trying to destroy them before they do even more horrible terroristic acts against innocent Americans and innocent people in other countries. At least that is what they say they are doing there, but you never know if there is, in fact, a different, "real" reason, that they are their, like there is in Iraq.
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
i like what you said i do know for a fact that the u.s invaded iraq for the oil and cuz saddam didnt like them they invaded the country but the thing about al saud im not really sure of however well said steven lol
The reasons the United states is in Afghanistan and the reasons they are in Iraq are two different stories. The US made a deal with Saudi Arabia, before, when they had become the most powerful oil country in the world, this is sometimes referred to as "The money laundering affair". The US got Saudi oil and Saudi Arabia got preference in international issues and even financial aid for financing Al Quida for their Afghan war against the Soviets. In turn for oil, the US turned their head and pretended not to know about all the horrible stuff the house of Saud was doing and terrorism they were financing. Later on, the US came to realize that Iraq has got an even larger oil reserve! So since US needs oil they tried to make a similar deal with Saddam like the one made during the Saudi money laundering affair. Since Saddam would not comply with US demands, the US had to find a reason to invade and get what they wanted by force. So the US decided to go and "free the Iraqi people from Saddam" and end his terroristic and cruel practices. While these are in fact, some would say, good enough reasons to invade, they were not the "real reasons". And so now the US is doing some good and trying to help the Iraqi people get back up on their feet and make their new government (one that will comply with US demands). In Afghanistan, the US is fighting the terrorism at the "source". They are going in and attacking the Taliban and trying to destroy them before they do even more horrible terroristic acts against innocent Americans and innocent people in other countries. At least that is what they say they are doing there, but you never know if there is, in fact, a different, "real" reason, that they are their, like there is in Iraq.
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
i like what you said i do know for a fact that the u.s invaded iraq for the oil and cuz saddam didnt like them they invaded the country but the thing about al saud im not really sure of however well said steven lol
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Is this a good idea to help economy and environment?
Is this a good idea to help economy and environment?
Ok one night i couldn't sleep and started getting all these genius ideas: Alright now we have trains that are able to change rails right? So why don't we add some kind of rail or pull system like the ones used in carwashes that pull your car. We can put them on freeways on each lane with the capability to change lanes the whole system is controlled by a computer i mean if we are able to create navigation systems that can re-route you i'm pretty sure we can create some kind of program that will pull cars to destinations and make them change lanes and make sure they don't crash each other and since this is all controlled by a computer there is no chance of human error so cars can be pulled at high speeds and how about all these pull systems will be solar powered. And there will be this huge command center like the one used for the New York subways, you know those huge monitors were smart people control which train goes where. Except this command center will be for the freeways just incase a helicopter lands on the freeway or if there's a police chase they can stop all cars and move them to the left lane. The freeway entrances will have a booth where you type in the address you want to go to on a little computer the system will then find what exit you will need to get off on and tell you the price, the price will be determined by how much your car weighs let's say you have a honda civic it will charge you 5 cents per mile THATS CHEAPER THAN GAS you hit the ok button put your car in neutral and your car will be on it's way! Once the system has got you to the exit you put your car in drive and continue from there. Now think about it does california charge to use the freeway? No so who gets all the money from you going on the freeway? The money goes into the pockets of countries such as saudi arabia where we buy oil from Gasoline is needed to power your car on the freeway of course! Now what if we can switch this so that the money will go into the pocket of California. This system will not waste gas at all you just put your car in neutral and the pull system will pull your vehicle. Take a second and think about it? There are 3 million people in California I'm pretty sure about 2 million californians use freeways a day. Let's say everyday 2 million californians drive 40 miles on the freeway a day so if we had this pull system and california charged 5 cents per mile each californian will pay $2.00 a day now 2x2 million=$4 million dollars a day! A DAY! Great right? California will be making money! Californians will save money because they won't have to use as much gas and the fees to go on the freeway are half as much they would have payed by driving on the freeway? And this will help the environment! Also this will save people time since they will be going faster on the freeway! Oh and if there is an emergency say somebody in your car has a stroke there will be an emergency number to call they will track your car and pull your car to the nearest exit that is close to a hospital. then we spread this technology all around the United states and we will get out of this recession so... what do you think?
Economics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think the system would cost more to build and maintain that the fees it would generate. a million dollars a day is not that much. You are under estimating cost to build, and you would still need to pay for the energy to run the system.
Ok one night i couldn't sleep and started getting all these genius ideas: Alright now we have trains that are able to change rails right? So why don't we add some kind of rail or pull system like the ones used in carwashes that pull your car. We can put them on freeways on each lane with the capability to change lanes the whole system is controlled by a computer i mean if we are able to create navigation systems that can re-route you i'm pretty sure we can create some kind of program that will pull cars to destinations and make them change lanes and make sure they don't crash each other and since this is all controlled by a computer there is no chance of human error so cars can be pulled at high speeds and how about all these pull systems will be solar powered. And there will be this huge command center like the one used for the New York subways, you know those huge monitors were smart people control which train goes where. Except this command center will be for the freeways just incase a helicopter lands on the freeway or if there's a police chase they can stop all cars and move them to the left lane. The freeway entrances will have a booth where you type in the address you want to go to on a little computer the system will then find what exit you will need to get off on and tell you the price, the price will be determined by how much your car weighs let's say you have a honda civic it will charge you 5 cents per mile THATS CHEAPER THAN GAS you hit the ok button put your car in neutral and your car will be on it's way! Once the system has got you to the exit you put your car in drive and continue from there. Now think about it does california charge to use the freeway? No so who gets all the money from you going on the freeway? The money goes into the pockets of countries such as saudi arabia where we buy oil from Gasoline is needed to power your car on the freeway of course! Now what if we can switch this so that the money will go into the pocket of California. This system will not waste gas at all you just put your car in neutral and the pull system will pull your vehicle. Take a second and think about it? There are 3 million people in California I'm pretty sure about 2 million californians use freeways a day. Let's say everyday 2 million californians drive 40 miles on the freeway a day so if we had this pull system and california charged 5 cents per mile each californian will pay $2.00 a day now 2x2 million=$4 million dollars a day! A DAY! Great right? California will be making money! Californians will save money because they won't have to use as much gas and the fees to go on the freeway are half as much they would have payed by driving on the freeway? And this will help the environment! Also this will save people time since they will be going faster on the freeway! Oh and if there is an emergency say somebody in your car has a stroke there will be an emergency number to call they will track your car and pull your car to the nearest exit that is close to a hospital. then we spread this technology all around the United states and we will get out of this recession so... what do you think?
Economics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think the system would cost more to build and maintain that the fees it would generate. a million dollars a day is not that much. You are under estimating cost to build, and you would still need to pay for the energy to run the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)