Read the article then respond to the poll. Please don't vote unless you've read the article.
Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque! | Ron Paul .com
How much do you agree/disagree with Ron Paul in this article? Explain
Ron Paul's a ****ing idiot, he's answering a question no one asked. We all agree with their right to build the Mosque but it seems Ron Paul is opposed to our right of self ownership not to enter into a contractual obligation to trade our labour for their capital and our right of free speech to encourage others to do the same. He likewise tries to paint the man behind this Mosque as innocent and us as bigots when the fact is this man is an overt Sharia supporting Islamist attempting to build a Mega-Mosque at ground zero who has compared the U.S. unfavorably to AQ, has said that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11, that OBL was made in the USA, and has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, actually come to think of it, he and Ron Paul are ideological fellow travelers. **** Ron Paul, **** him in his stupid hypocritical ass.
Read the article then respond to the poll. Please don't vote unless you've read the article.
Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque! | Ron Paul .com
How much do you agree/disagree with Ron Paul in this article? Explain
It's completely inappropriate for terrorists to be allowed to build a temple to terrorism on Ground Zero. Period. No rational person argues it is. Rationalizing persons who want something else argue for this.
Just in case you're unfamiliar with the term, rationalizing is the process people go through to convince themselves that the third eclair won't show up in their thighs. It's a form of lying that bears a loose resemblance to "reasoning", but the purpose is deceit.
Largely agree.
The issue is a moronic distraction.
I don't see Ron Paul defending this right he says convicted child molesters must have to buy a house across the street from his victim's school and live in it.
But, if you're going to take Paul's silly theory of completely unrestricted property rights to heart, that's exactly what he means.
And that isn't happening. If anyone is rationalizing it's you. Your saying to yourself that it's okay to stop religious freedom because "all muslims are terrorist, and it's a shrine to terror" Give me a break :roll:
Since when were all Muslims part of Al Qaeda? Your example has nothing in common with what is going on in this GZM debate.
Not ALL muslims are building the Temple to Terrorism. People with extremely suspicious connections are promoting this monument to death, and those people are amazingly incapable of calling terrorists organizations what they are. Normal and sane people have no problems identifying Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, nor do normal and sane people blame the victim in the 9-11 atrocities.
But the people promoting the Temple to Death can't do that, and the people defeding the people wanting to build a monument to murder don't want to discuss this either.
Then again, you could try to discuss the fact that I presented, namely, that libertarian philosophy does not grant any concept of absolute freedom to build without regards to community standards. That's anarchy, and anarchy is not a libertarian tenet.
What suspicious connections? You mean the guy that is part owner of Fox News?
What suspicious connections? You mean the guy that is part owner of Fox News?
The people who completely disagree should stop calling themselves Americans because they don't respect our constitution.
Really? How is exactly exercising free speech and encouraging people to exercise their right of self ownership to refuse to enter into contractual obligations to trade their labour for the Mosque owner's capital anti-Constitutional? Calling for state intervention would be anti-Constitutional but much like Ron Paul you're answering a question no one bloody asked.
Why are people limited from building willy nilly?
Really? How is exactly exercising free speech and encouraging people to exercise their right of self ownership to refuse to enter into contractual obligations to trade their labour for the Mosque owner's capital anti-Constitutional? Calling for state intervention would be anti-Constitutional but much like Ron Paul you're answering a question no one bloody asked.
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.
Scarecrow asked it, and so have others. And Paul answered your question, too:
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?