"Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the "ground zero mosque."
In a statement decrying "demagogy" around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that "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,'" Paul continues."
Ron Paul is right on this. Many of my fellow shooters are repeating the 'muzzies in Manhattan!' squawk, because it fits their politics and they're living in an echo-chamber, so that... when they hear a contrary view, they denounce it as stupid, lib-tard, or... treason.
Ron Paul is right on this. Many of my fellow shooters are repeating the 'muzzies in Manhattan!' squawk, because it fits their politics and they're living in an echo-chamber, so that... when they hear a contrary view, they denounce it as stupid, lib-tard, or... treason.
Ideology can do strange things to folks.
Good on Ron Paul
Ron Paul is a libertarian. It's no small wonder he's on the wrong side of this...just like all the libtarded '1st amendment babboons' who mistake this for a 'freedom of religion' issue rather than what it is, a community planning board issue. Nobody is banning islam in manhattan...I'd rather see lots more of it there (they deserve it) . But those who oppose the mosque consider it an affront headed by a radical islamist, nestled among the ashes of 3000+ of our murdered countrymen at the hands of the same sort of ilk.
By your flawed reasoning, then, we have 2 possible sets of action:
1: the Mosque is OK'd and the Greek Orthodox church crushed on
9/11 gets fully funded as well
OR
2: The Mosque cannot be built, and the Greek Orthordox church
cannot be rebuilt except by private funds.
If this is a 1st amendment issue (as libtards like to think), then
GOVERNMENT, RIGHT NOW, IS ENDORSING ISLAM AS A FAVORABLE RELIGION AND GREEK ORTHODOXY AS A NEGATIVE ONE. SO, which is it ? Or does my argument sound as asinine to you as your position does to me ?
Well, this mosque was planned before 9/11 and they are building it with there own funds. You think that the opposition to the mosque does not have a factor of anti-Islam feelings involved?
For a comparison, maybe there should be no Christian churches in Atlanta. Under the claim of Christian warriordom, the Klan lynched Leo Frank in Atlanta, a young Jewish businessman. To spare the feelings of all in the area, we should ban the building of any Christian church in this area where 'Christian' terroristic murder occurred.
Well, this mosque was planned before 9/11 and they are building it with there own funds. You think that the opposition to the mosque does not have a factor of anti-Islam feelings involved?
For a comparison, maybe there should be no Christian churches in Atlanta. Under the claim of Christian warriordom, the Klan lynched Leo Frank in Atlanta, a young Jewish businessman. To spare the feelings of all in the area, we should ban the building of any Christian church in this area where 'Christian' terroristic murder occurred.
I think you should help them raise all the funds needed to build it, I'm sure they will give you a spot right up front to put your little carpet on.
Well, this mosque was planned before 9/11 and they are building it with there own funds. You think that the opposition to the mosque does not have a factor of anti-Islam feelings involved?
For a comparison, maybe there should be no Christian churches in Atlanta. Under the claim of Christian warriordom, the Klan lynched Leo Frank in Atlanta, a young Jewish businessman. To spare the feelings of all in the area, we should ban the building of any Christian church in this area where 'Christian' terroristic murder occurred.
The comparison is bullcrap. The question boils down to a single
point, which is a civil decision which is well within the city's perview and which is exercised all the time, and that is "SHOULD the city exercise it's lawful power to have that mosque built someplace else, in light of public sentiment". Period.
If you're gonna go trolling for all other kinds of bulls**t events and apply the same yardstick, it obscures the issue. Maybe there should be no more blacks arrested in L.A., in deference to Rodney King ?
Or maybe no more guns sold in brooklyn because Yussef Hawkins was shot on a street corner, or maybe in deference to the two Guyanese victims of the auto accident, all the Jews should move out of Crown heights ? It's all bulls**t. And not to be confused with THIS issue. THIS issue is one where the city planning commission is disregarding public sentiment in the placement of this mosque. There are always decisions made in light of public sentiment and it's really quite funny that nobody's questioning the City of New York's authority to locate places of worship based on traffic patterns, neighborhood demographics,accessibitlity etc...the pipsqueaks, as always with libturds, attempt to make it into a racial issue or a 1st amendment issue. It's not. It's a civil engineering issue.
The comparison is bullcrap. The question boils down to a single point, which is a civil decision which is well within the city's perview and which is exercised all the time, and that is "SHOULD the city exercise it's lawful power to have that mosque built someplace else, in light of public sentiment". Period.
No we were talking about the location of criminal acts made under the guise of religion. Then you have the same religion erecting a house of worship in the area.
Well, this mosque was planned before 9/11 and they are building it with there own funds. You think that the opposition to the mosque does not have a factor of anti-Islam feelings involved?
For a comparison, maybe there should be no Christian churches in Atlanta. Under the claim of Christian warriordom, the Klan lynched Leo Frank in Atlanta, a young Jewish businessman. To spare the feelings of all in the area, we should ban the building of any Christian church in this area where 'Christian' terroristic murder occurred.
I didn't see anything in the Wiki article about a lynching "under the claim of Christian warriordom" and it appears that the reforming of the local Klan didn't occur until after the Knights of Mary Phagan had lynched Mr. Frank. Looks to me like the lynching was a pursuit of vigilante justice because Frank's death sentence for the murder of a 13 year old girl was commuted to a life sentence. It doesn't appear to have been motivated by a belief in "Christianity," or in pursuit of Christian goals. Although Frank's conviction may have been incorrect, I'm not sure I see the relevance of the comparison, since the folks in the WTC didn't get a trial and had not been convicted or even charged with murdering anyone prior to their "lynching" in the name of Allah.
Also, Atlanta, like NYC, is a big place. There are 100 mosques already in NYC. There are other viable sites for the GZ Mosque. No one has said "No Mosques in NYC, Kick them all out," yet your analogy is "no Christian churches in Atlanta." If someone applies to build a church under Frank's hanging tree, let me know and sign the petition requesting that it be located elsewhere...
Last edited by ipscshooter; 08-24-2010 at 08:41 AM.
Ron Paul did not support the building of that "mosque". i watched the interview in it's entirety. Ron Paul stated that he did not care if the "mosque" is constructed or not. He did say that the demonization of the Islamic religion must stop.
Ron Splits with Rand and GOP: Favors Mosque
about a lynching "under the claim of Christian warriordom" and it appears that the reforming of the local Klan didn't occur until after the Knights of Mary Phagan had lynched Mr. Frank. Looks to me like the lynching was a pursuit of vigilante justice because Frank's death sentence for the murder of a 13 year old girl was commuted to a life sentence. It doesn't appear to have been motivated by a belief in "Christianity," or in pursuit of Christian goals. Although Frank's conviction may have been incorrect, I'm not sure I see the relevance of the comparison, since the folks in the WTC didn't get a trial and had not been convicted or even charged with murdering anyone prior to their "lynching" in the name of Allah.
