Ron Paul defends Park 51

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
:shock: :hump:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

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.
 

Operation 420

Well-Known Member
The Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf is a CFR member http://www.cfr.org/about/outreach/religioninitiative/advisory_board.html , (scroll halfway down to see his name) and the Cultural center is being funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Rockefeller Philanthropy, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

This guys blog has links to actual sites with proof http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque-part-ii.html

It is all a show to divide and conquer. Either you fall for it, or you don't.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
if ron paul weren't such a hypocrite on certain issues, such as abortion, he would be my favorite politician.

"government ought to stay out of our lives....except for women's uteruses"

hypocrite
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
so your saying that unborn baby doesn't have rights? either way in his interview on the view he said he wants it on a state level, just like everything else.
[video=youtube;EL1BOWC3No0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL1BOWC3No0[/video]
[video=youtube;pTjccxVZ8B0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTjccxVZ8B0[/video]
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
if ron paul weren't such a hypocrite on certain issues, such as abortion, he would be my favorite politician.

"government ought to stay out of our lives....except for women's uteruses"

hypocrite
It's not hypocrical. He is very consistent. No one has the right to take anothers life except in self defense. He believes the right to life of the baby trumps all. He does say there are certain circumstances he's for abortion.

Are you willing to take the hypocrite label back now?
 

hoss12781

Well-Known Member
We have far larger issues at stake than political baiting about what is and should be protected as a freedom of religion issue. Both the Paul's are wankers. If Rand wins in KY I'm moving to Tenn.
 

Wordz

Well-Known Member
[video]http://tv.gawker.com/5620154/jon-stewart-fox-news-omits-facts-to-further-its-fear+driven-narrative[/video]

So the part owner at faux is head of an organization that is donating money to the mosque.
 

Patrick Bateman

Active Member
if ron paul weren't such a hypocrite on certain issues, such as abortion, he would be my favorite politician.

"government ought to stay out of our lives....except for women's uteruses"

hypocrite
The libertarian stance on abortion is based on the idea that life begins at conception, the human conceived has a right to life which trumps the mother's right to destroy that life
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
[video]http://tv.gawker.com/5620154/jon-stewart-fox-news-omits-facts-to-further-its-fear+driven-narrative[/video]

So the part owner at faux is head of an organization that is donating money to the mosque.
the evil vs. stupid debate was epic. thanks for posting this :hump:

and no, i'm still not buying his pseudo-libertarian stance on any level of government being in women's uteruses. i'll take back the hypocrite remark and just say he is libertarian when convenient, like rand.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
so its ok for a doctor to murder a child but if she has that baby then dumps it in a dumpster she can get charged with murder? do you have any other instances where he's being a libertarian when convenient?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
so its ok for a doctor to murder a child but if she has that baby then dumps it in a dumpster she can get charged with murder? do you have any other instances where he's being a libertarian when convenient?
loaded question. my reply is: when did you stop beating your wife?

i don't want to get into the abortion debate. believe what you want to but don't impose your beliefs on a female's right to choose
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
loaded question. my reply is: when did you stop beating your wife?

i don't want to get into the abortion debate. believe what you want to but don't impose your beliefs on a female's right to choose
wtf kind of a question is this? really? and how is murdering a child equivalent to beating a woman? too bad im not even married...
i believe in choice. and she could have very well chosen to not put herself in that choice between murdering and giving birth to a child. thats fine you dont have to respond to that, but how about you respond to my other question about ron paul being a libertarian where convenient.
 

futfut

Member
if ron paul weren't such a hypocrite on certain issues, such as abortion, he would be my favorite politician.

"government ought to stay out of our lives....except for women's uteruses"

hypocrite

How is he hypocrite if he thinks life begin at conception. Abortion is a delicate and complex issue. Myself , ultimately, i would let the women have the choice. But it doesn't mean i don't respect the view of Ron Paul and i certainly don't want tax payer money to pay for it. He has an anecdote that made me change my view on abortion :
One day I walked into an operating room, to just be an observant, which we would do generally, as a medical resident. They were performing this hysterectomy, which was a caesarean section. And they lifted out a fetus that weighted approximately 2 pounds, and it was breathing and crying. And it was put in a bucket and set in the corner of the room, and everybody in the room just pretended that they didn't hear it. And the baby died. And I walked out of that room a different person
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
The libertarian stance on abortion is based on the idea that life begins at conception, the human conceived has a right to life which trumps the mother's right to destroy that life
Yeah abortion is murder ....is killing babies any less bad than killing adults? [youtube]jwfvnpBhAGQ&feature=related[/youtube] A kill is a kill....1.48 in...he got screwed just listen to the story
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
wtf kind of a question is this? really? and how is murdering a child equivalent to beating a woman? too bad im not even married...
i believe in choice. and she could have very well chosen to not put herself in that choice between murdering and giving birth to a child. thats fine you dont have to respond to that, but how about you respond to my other question about ron paul being a libertarian where convenient.
do you not get what a loaded question is? it implies certain presuppositions, like you being being married, and beating your wife. the proper response is 'i reject the question'.

just like i reject your question that an early gestation fetus is equivalent to a human being (or, like most abortions, an undifferentiated pile of cells as most abortions happen early stage).

the fact that you have no idea what a loaded question is speaks volumes for your intelligence quotient.

as far as other views of ron paul, i find some of them completely abhorrent, but none as hypocritical as this one. he is a supposed libertarian who wants government interference in your own body. what a fucking hypocrite. like i said, libertarian when convenient.

hope that clarifies
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How is he hypocrite if he thinks life begin at conception.
he is not a hypocrite for holding this belief. he is a hypocrite for espousing libertarian views yet advocating for the government to get into my wife's uterus. ayn rand says a fetus has no rights until it is born. murray rothbard correctly equates a fetus to a parasite.

the official libertarian position is summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion#Pro-choice_positions

like i said: hypocrite.

just like any other politician, he takes the anti-choice stand to give himself a scant chance at the party nomination, political gain, call it what you will. your appeals to emotion don't sway me in the least. stop trying to legislate your morality on my wife's uterus
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
its not a loaded question at all. in fact, its real fuckin simple. you either support child killing or not. dont get it twisted, abortion is child killing. you clearly do and all i asked was how it was justifiable for a doctor to murder it anymore then the mother having it and dumping it somewhere. one goes to jail, the other doesn't.
but here's the thing, i didnt even want you fucking opinion on it. you didn't want to get in to it so i try to change the subject. if you would've spoke on it everything would be cool. instead you try to attack my intelligence, and you dont even answer the question i was really wanting from you. so lets me and you be real clear on something, fuck you. do us all a favor and abort yourself from this world. please never have children. if i wasn't scared of getting banned, id tell you how i really feel. have a nice day shit stains.
 
Top