Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
What He Said: Ron Paul on Ground Zero Property Rights
Monday, August 23, 2010 4:16 PM
HKCAVALIER
Monday, August 23, 2010 4:25 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote: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.”... 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-conservative’s aggressive wars... 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.
Monday, August 23, 2010 4:26 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Monday, August 23, 2010 4:31 PM
Monday, August 23, 2010 4:40 PM
Monday, August 23, 2010 4:50 PM
Quote: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.
Monday, August 23, 2010 5:00 PM
Monday, August 23, 2010 5:07 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:12 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Smart political move. Of course, it never was an issue of "rights", but one of dignity, respect and decency. The Phelps clan - Westboro nut jobs that they are- has the "right " to protest the funerals of those who died of AIDs, or our war heroes, but it sure as hell doesn't make it right. Or proper.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And yet no one is calling for investigations into where they get their funding...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And yet no one is calling for investigations into where they get their funding...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:26 AM
KANEMAN
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Isn't it fantastic??? I just heard about it (on MSNBC, by the way), and my jaw dropped. Here's the quote:Quote: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.”... 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-conservative’s aggressive wars... 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. Huzzah Ron Paul!!! The definitive statement on the entire issue...I'm DEEPLY impressed! Mr.Paul! Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani, Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”, signing off
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, The Tea Party long-since discarded following of Ron Paul's full platform (the Peace part especially) but they still bandied his name around the same way modern day Patriots use the names of the Founding Fathers whenever they are trying to make a political point. However, with this stance, diametrically opposed to recent maneuverings and strategems, I wonder how they will respond. Will the George Washington of the Tea Party be disowned officially now, as his policies have been quietly and unofficially abandoned in the past? Or is this a special moment for the Tea Party, and perhaps the larger part of the Conservatives in this country, to rediscover their roots? --Anthony Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Where did I call for that ? ( the mosque's funding to be investigated ) I'm not Newt, so don't try to piggy back my views onto what he may have said, or not said. Any calls for the funding of the Mosque are proper and still being made, because of the very legitimate tie in w/ terrorism. Not so for those speaking out against the Mosque. Pelosi called for investigations so as to intimidate and quell free speech. HUGE difference, moron.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kaneman: What else do you expect him to do? You know you are not Auraptor you are Newt, Bush, Limbaugh, etc....The guy is a complete tool.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Where did I call for that ? ( the mosque's funding to be investigated )
Quote: I'm not Newt, so don't try to piggy back my views onto what he may have said, or not said. Any calls for the funding of the Mosque are proper and still being made, because of the very legitimate tie in w/ terrorism.
Quote: Not so for those speaking out against the Mosque. Pelosi called for investigations so as to intimidate and quell free speech. HUGE difference, moron.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:55 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:59 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kaneman: He's got a point Kwicko. That he thinks something would be proper is not the same as calling for it. So once again you either lie or have no comprehension.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by kaneman: What else do you expect him to do? You know you are not Auraptor you are Newt, Bush, Limbaugh, etc....The guy is a complete tool.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:13 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:24 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I need search no further than your own post in which you claim you've never called for such a thing, then call for such a thing. Again.
Quote: You can sit around and claim that saying an investigation would be "proper" isn't calling for an investigation, just like you believe waterboarding is "proper", but would never actually CONDONE it. Except when you condone it, of course. "Hey, I'm not saying Rappy should be murdered; I'm just saying that murdering him would be proper." There. You can never claim that I advocated violence against you, right?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:40 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:08 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:28 AM
RIVERLOVE
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:33 AM
STORYMARK
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:35 AM
Quote: "Hundreds of thousands of people voted for their favorite principles online to create the Contract as an open-sourced platform for the Tea Party movement."
Quote: However, the Washington conservative group FreedomWorks, led by former House Republican Leader Dick Armey, did have a hand in selecting the final 10 proposals.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:19 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:27 AM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Isn't it fantastic??? I just heard about it (on MSNBC, by the way), and my jaw dropped. Here's the quote:Quote: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.”... 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-conservative’s aggressive wars... 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. Huzzah Ron Paul!!! The definitive statement on the entire issue...I'm DEEPLY impressed!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: "The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks." - WTF? I haven's seen anyone make that leap, certainly not around here. "According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims." - Again, Huh? Who is saying that?? Huzzah Ron Paul indeed, what a stupid statement to make. There wouldn't be a Muslim walking on the continent if people actually thought that.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:14 AM
Quote: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 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.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: "The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks." - WTF? I haven's seen anyone make that leap, certainly not around here. "According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims." - Again, Huh? Who is saying that?? Huzzah Ron Paul indeed, what a stupid statement to make. There wouldn't be a Muslim walking on the continent if people actually thought that. That sounds a bit BS. All the whining and complaining about it being too close, sensitivity, etc.... WTF do you think it's about. Folks aren't protesting ANYHTING else going up around the area.... but they'll protest a Muslim center. The ONLY common denominator is Islam, so OF COURSE that's why people are bitching. Most just won't admit it. "I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:46 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:52 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:14 AM
Quote:In the announcement on its Facebook page, The Dove World Outreach Center of Gainesville, Fla. asked other religious groups to join in standing "against the evil of Islam. Islam is of the devil!" The Facebook event had received more than 1,500 "Like" recommendations by users late Friday, but had also been attacked with a number of threatening messages posted on the page and corresponding anti-Islam rants. The church's pastor, Terry Jones -- who has written a book titled "Islam is of The Devil" and sells T-shirts bearing the same message -- defended the controversial event. "Islam and Sharia law was responsible for 9/11," Jones told AFP.
Quote: Islam was indeed responsible for 9/11 btw
Quote:Exactly the case with 9/11. Many, perhaps even most Muslims were appalled by the murders commited in the name of Islam. They were not guilty. But they were responsible. Sorry, when we rightly understand the collective responsibility — not guilt — that governs our understanding of history, be it political or religious, we reject the simplistic, atomistic notion of the lily white innocence of moderate Muslims. In fact, al-Qaida terrorists study Islamic texts, find proof for their actions in Islamic history and act in the name of Islam — including a mandate from some of its highest religious authorities.
Quote:Some wingnuts seem to believe ALL Muslims approved of the 9-11 attack
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: "IT'S THE PLACE" Hello, Do you advocate that the region near Ground Zero should be evacuated and un-developed, un-used? Is it that any use of these hallowed properties is inappropriate? Do you wish to designate the entire neighborhood as a historical monument to the tragedy of 9/11, where future generations can walk solemnly by and think introspective thoughts? Because if it's the PLACE, that would seem to be the argument. Building ANYTHING in this PLACE is sacrilige and disrespectful. It is HALLOWED GROUND.
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: On the other hand, if you've got apartments, businesses, and a man with a cart selling Oscar Meyer Weiners, then it's not the PLACE, is it?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:06 PM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:34 PM
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Forgive me for saying so, but this perfectly illustrates the absurdity of this situation to me. We all know that Oscar Meyer is not responsible if some maniac Oscar Meyer salesman with a cart blows up a building. So to say you'd have a problem with an Oscar Meyer vendor operating near the site of the destruction years later illustrates exactly how illogical this seems to me and many others. Even if the Oscar Meyer vendor had screamed, "Wiener Ackbar, The philosophy of Sausage indicates you all must be ground up!" I still wouldn't blame Oscar Meyer, or insist that Oscar Meyer operate X distance away from the site of the terrorist attack.
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: "What about the 1200 existing mosques and their sign of religious tolerance? Doesn't that signify that the place may have something to do with it in this case?" I think it implies the EVENT may have something to do with it. I think it implies that you and others are drawing a line of correlation between the vendor, his extreme act of destruction, and all Oscar Meyer employees. This Oscar Meyer store is not affiliated with the vendor who blew up the building. Sure, they both love hot dogs. The vendor may have even perpetrated his act of destruction because of his love of hot dogs. However, I think it's time we let the Oscar Meyer company peddle its hot dogs in peace.
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: I understand the irrationality of emotion. I understand fear and anger and sadness. I feel these things, too. However, I don't make it a point of principle to act on them, nor do I require others to accommodate them. I recognize these feelings as both normal and as my own burden. I try not to impose these natural human emotions on the people around me. It's not fair to them. If anyone is going to be allowed to do business, then we ought to let Oscar Meyer sell its hot dogs. They're not being insensitive to us. We are being sensitive to them. That's our burden to carry, not theirs.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:00 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL