Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England
Didn't want this buried in the other ten threads so I made a new one, sorry. Hopefully it's the last topic on the subject...

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

    It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

    The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

    Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

    Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

    In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

    They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

    The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

    The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

    Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

    This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

    There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

    If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

    The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

    Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

    Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

    It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

    The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

    The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

    This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

    We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

    Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-p … yc-mosque/

Fantastic, eloquent, and makes the exact same argument that I've been making since day 1
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
13rin
Member
+977|6764
F'em.  They can build it somewhere else.  Or good luck to em on actually getting it built...

http://www.bluecollarcorner.com/blog/?p=750

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-08-25 09:48:04)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5673|Fuck this.
*begins slow clap*
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6755
i love ron paul, seriously. even though he was a bit of a comedy-horse during the last election... please, elect him next time?

guy would be a severe shock to the political spectrum, haha.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5673|Fuck this.

Uzique wrote:

i love ron paul, seriously. even though he was a bit of a comedy-horse during the last election... please, elect him next time?

guy would be a severe shock to the political spectrum, haha.
....You're not even American. Why do you care?
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

ROGUEDD wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i love ron paul, seriously. even though he was a bit of a comedy-horse during the last election... please, elect him next time?

guy would be a severe shock to the political spectrum, haha.
....You're not even American. Why do you care?
Because American politics do have some influence on the rest of the world ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6900|do not disturb

That really sums up the issue, and Ron Paul makes such excellent points in that article. +1

However, we are not supposed to talk about Ron Paul here.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

ROGUEDD wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i love ron paul, seriously. even though he was a bit of a comedy-horse during the last election... please, elect him next time?

guy would be a severe shock to the political spectrum, haha.
....You're not even American. Why do you care?
Given that America has a large effect on the rest of the world, he has a  valid reason to care.
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6944|The darkside of Denver
Sigh... Love that man.  I campaigned for him during the election as well.  Everything he says just seems to click with me.
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6900|do not disturb

Really? Awesome.
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6944|The darkside of Denver

Phrozenbot wrote:

Really? Awesome.
yea.  Still an active member of C4L as well.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Didn't want this buried in the other ten threads so I made a new one, sorry. Hopefully it's the last topic on the subject...

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-p … yc-mosque/

Fantastic, eloquent, and makes the exact same argument that I've been making since day 1
Much of Ron Paul's outlook on foreign policy and social policy is practical and (dare I say) progressive.  When it comes to those things, he and I are on the same page most of the time.

I just can't stand a lot of his economic stances.
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6900|do not disturb

SonderKommando wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Really? Awesome.
yea.  Still an active member of C4L as well.
I hope he runs in 2012. He will seriously have a better chance unless he is up against Sarah Palin. Ugh...
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6944|The darkside of Denver

Phrozenbot wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Really? Awesome.
yea.  Still an active member of C4L as well.
I hope he runs in 2012. He will seriously have a better chance unless he is up against Sarah Palin. Ugh...
He says if he has the support he'll run.  He def has the support.  I think its likely.  Only bad part is his age.  He'll be 75 going on 76!!  I've met him twice, shook his hand, he signed my t-shirt and a 2008 campaign sign for me as well. 

My Grandmother in Austin knows him personally (which i find kind of odd since she doesnt live in his district), they've had lunch a few times etc etc.  She campaigned for him as well.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Phrozenbot wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Really? Awesome.
yea.  Still an active member of C4L as well.
I hope he runs in 2012. He will seriously have a better chance unless he is up against Sarah Palin. Ugh...
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but if a Republican wins the presidency in 2012, I'd rather have him there than just about any other Republican.

As Uzique said, he'd be a serious shock to the system -- in many ways, a good one.

Paul would definitely lessen the amount of pork in government and would be the person most likely to actually get us out of Afghanistan in a timely manner.
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6944|The darkside of Denver

Turquoise wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

yea.  Still an active member of C4L as well.
I hope he runs in 2012. He will seriously have a better chance unless he is up against Sarah Palin. Ugh...
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but if a Republican wins the presidency in 2012, I'd rather have him there than just about any other Republican.

As Uzique said, he'd be a serious shock to the system -- in many ways, a good one.

Paul would definitely lessen the amount of pork in government and would be the person most likely to actually get us out of Afghanistan in a timely manner.
Is it his views on banking that you dont like Turquoise?

*nvm, just re-read your post.

Last edited by SonderKommando (2010-08-25 11:14:37)

Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7001

SonderKommando wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:


I hope he runs in 2012. He will seriously have a better chance unless he is up against Sarah Palin. Ugh...
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but if a Republican wins the presidency in 2012, I'd rather have him there than just about any other Republican.

As Uzique said, he'd be a serious shock to the system -- in many ways, a good one.

Paul would definitely lessen the amount of pork in government and would be the person most likely to actually get us out of Afghanistan in a timely manner.
Is it his views on banking that you dont like Turquoise?
I'd probably say economic policies, especially on free trade in general.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6900|do not disturb

SonderKommando wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

yea.  Still an active member of C4L as well.
I hope he runs in 2012. He will seriously have a better chance unless he is up against Sarah Palin. Ugh...
He says if he has the support he'll run.  He def has the support.  I think its likely.  Only bad part is his age.  He'll be 75 going on 76!!  I've met him twice, shook his hand, he signed my t-shirt and a 2008 campaign sign for me as well. 

My Grandmother in Austin knows him personally (which i find kind of odd since she doesnt live in his district), they've had lunch a few times etc etc.  She campaigned for him as well.
He is indeed old, but he seems fit as a fiddle. God bless him.

ha, my Grandmother chastised me for supporting Ron Paul. She supports Obama and there is no arguing with her.

Turquoise wrote:

I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but if a Republican wins the presidency in 2012, I'd rather have him there than just about any other Republican.

As Uzique said, he'd be a serious shock to the system -- in many ways, a good one.

Paul would definitely lessen the amount of pork in government and would be the person most likely to actually get us out of Afghanistan in a timely manner.
He's more likely to stand by his word than the last legacy of presidents. His views are radical to many, but he stood by them in the primaries and lost because of them. He also lost for not being apart of the establishment.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SonderKommando wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:


I hope he runs in 2012. He will seriously have a better chance unless he is up against Sarah Palin. Ugh...
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but if a Republican wins the presidency in 2012, I'd rather have him there than just about any other Republican.

As Uzique said, he'd be a serious shock to the system -- in many ways, a good one.

Paul would definitely lessen the amount of pork in government and would be the person most likely to actually get us out of Afghanistan in a timely manner.
Is it his views on banking that you dont like Turquoise?

*nvm, just re-read your post.
Well, I actually agree with him on eliminating the Fed Reserve.  I just would like to replace it with a Third Central Bank.  Paul doesn't exactly advocate the second part, but I also agree with him on possibly switching to a commodity-based currency.  Granted, I don't really know which commodity to pick.  Gold isn't exactly as safe as many people seem to assume.

I mostly object to his general aversion to regulation.  I believe the government's most important role is to regulate.  I can side with privatizing certain amenities and services, but this requires having certain regulations in place to set ground rules for industry to operate under.

I believe Libertarians trust the market far too much.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Phrozenbot wrote:

He's more likely to stand by his word than the last legacy of presidents. His views are radical to many, but he stood by them in the primaries and lost because of them. He also lost for not being apart of the establishment.
For better or worse, his willingness to strictly abide by his ideals is part of why he'll probably never be president.
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6944|The darkside of Denver

Turquoise wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but if a Republican wins the presidency in 2012, I'd rather have him there than just about any other Republican.

As Uzique said, he'd be a serious shock to the system -- in many ways, a good one.

Paul would definitely lessen the amount of pork in government and would be the person most likely to actually get us out of Afghanistan in a timely manner.
Is it his views on banking that you dont like Turquoise?

*nvm, just re-read your post.
Well, I actually agree with him on eliminating the Fed Reserve.  I just would like to replace it with a Third Central Bank.  Paul doesn't exactly advocate the second part, but I also agree with him on possibly switching to a commodity-based currency.  Granted, I don't really know which commodity to pick.  Gold isn't exactly as safe as many people seem to assume.

I mostly object to his general aversion to regulation.  I believe the government's most important role is to regulate.  I can side with privatizing certain amenities and services, but this requires having certain regulations in place to set ground rules for industry to operate under.

I believe Libertarians trust the market far too much.
I struggle with this as well.  I share your concerns, but I'm still on the fence.
13rin
Member
+977|6764

Turquoise wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

He's more likely to stand by his word than the last legacy of presidents. His views are radical to many, but he stood by them in the primaries and lost because of them. He also lost for not being apart of the establishment.
For better or worse, his willingness to strictly abide by his ideals is part of why he'll probably never be president.
All you have to do is lie.  Then once you're in office, you do whatever the you like.  Just ask Obama.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6900|do not disturb

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

He's more likely to stand by his word than the last legacy of presidents. His views are radical to many, but he stood by them in the primaries and lost because of them. He also lost for not being apart of the establishment.
For better or worse, his willingness to strictly abide by his ideals is part of why he'll probably never be president.
All you have to do is lie.  Then once you're in office, you do whatever the you like.  Just ask Obama.
And so did Bush.

If only this type of grief came when Bush was around, maybe people would take Obama haters more seriously.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7056|PNW

I was opposed when I first heard about it because I thought it lacked tactfulness. Now, I think it would be stupid to bother moving it at this point. It's not an architecturally-imposing edifice any more than New York's culturally-distinctive cab drivers.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Phrozenbot wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


For better or worse, his willingness to strictly abide by his ideals is part of why he'll probably never be president.
All you have to do is lie.  Then once you're in office, you do whatever the you like.  Just ask Obama.
And so did Bush.

If only this type of grief came when Bush was around, maybe people would take Obama haters more seriously.
Well, I would actually argue that what happened with Bush is that it got to the point where people blamed Bush for everything.  I still hate Bush, but even I'll admit that people really did succumb to Bush Derangement Syndrome.  The problem now is that people blame Obama for everything.

Presidents should be held accountable, but there is a difference between reasonable criticisms and paranoid absurdity.  The 9/11 truthers were the nuts of the Bush era, and much of the Tea Party has filled this role during Obama's reign.

Stressing fiscal conservatism without going off in some crazy xenophobic social agenda would really help the Republicans out a lot.  People can relate to fiscal concerns like the national debt, but when things like this mosque issue take precedence, it scares away the moderate middle.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard