- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Do we include Europeans and Asians who are not military coming anywhere near Somalia?
If so, we got ourselves a deal. Sink them all or none.
Piracy is the only response available to them and I won't condemn them
I've not aware of any Neo Consrvative who actually "favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government".
Interventionalism, perhaps, although that might depend on several factors. If you know of any neo-conservatives who are hostile to religion in politics I'd like to know who they might be because that tends to be an issure supported by the left. The same is true of big government.
But whoever gives the definition it seems clear that there are some varying definitions of what the term means, and it will probably change more over time as well. Some labels, and this is one of them, tend to mean whatever the user wants it to mean.
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 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.
That's generally my understanding also but when the term is being used for Gay Rights issues then that might be a leap too far.
How you deal with incursions within those 12 miles is your business. Deal.
They are not hostile to the Christian religion... mostly the Muslim religion
It seems you're using the term "Neo-Conservative" to mean anything you want it to mean.
And that is from a member of the GOP... The party has been infected by many nonconservative principles... Telling citizens to not practice their religion on their own private property isn't exactly small government or government in favor of individual freedom and liberty. The right was quick to defend Dr Laura for calling a woman a racial slur on the radio... freedom of speech, but the Muslims, no.. they won't defend Muslims at all.
As a matter of fact they have defended Muslims, both in the United States and elsewhere. You only need know about Bosnia, as one example.
It seems you don't understand the issues behind the Mosque at the 9/11 site either. Building a Mosque there was considered to be insensitive, and those behind it should have understood that. Of course no one is denying them the right to build it.
I've heard of the racial slur from Dr. Laura but was unaware of who was defending her. Do you have names and the reasoning behind their defense?
That is pretty much how I defined the term and you argued with me.... I only argued that not defending gay rights was not a Libertarian thing to do. It's not really a neocon thing to do or not do. However, a lot of Christian Conservatives are attracted to the neocon principles like waging war on the east and stating the US is their country, and the Muslims have no place...
Do you have anything at all, stats for example, to support your contentions?
Grant,
I don't know why you want to prove me wrong so bad... Pretty much everybody here who has had something to say about our exchange has agreed with me on what the definition of Nonconservative is. You can go back and reread the thread again.
I am also entitled to my opinions, which is that the GOP has been largely infected by Nonconservative principles.... look at the way the GOP acted under the Bush Admin and supported his foreign policy. Who supported his policy in the GOP... the Christian base.
I am also not alone in this opinion, as I quoted a member of the GOP above... so what's your beef with my opinion? Can you argue I am being wrong?
That is pretty much how I defined the term and you argued with me.... I only argued that not defending gay rights was not a Libertarian thing to do. It's not really a neocon thing to do or not do. However, a lot of Christian Conservatives are attracted to the neocon principles like waging war on the east and stating the US is their country, and the Muslims have no place...
Why do you say that? You support the actions of criminals? If Somaliland wants to get any kind of international recognition, don't you think cooperating in the international response to the criminals in Somalia would help it gain legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?