Winston Smith
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- 204
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No. A legal ban on building a monument to the martyrs on Ground Zero is perfectly acceptable. As I stated, libertarianism isn't anarchy, and communites that don't have standards aren't communities.
Scarecrow asked it, and so have others. And Paul answered your question, too:
Yes, because 60+ years of aggressive interventionist policies can in no way shape or form create hostilities towards the aggressor. Nope, it's all their religion. If it wasn't for Islam there wouldn't have been....I don't know, what are we all blaming on them now? It's kinda hard to take your angry, emotion riddled post seriously when it seems such a foolish argument.
I thought Paul's comments were spot on with the exception of his misrepresentation of Nancy Pelosi's position on the issue.
“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’
The people who boycott any business, TV or radio personality should do the same then.The people who completely disagree should stop calling themselves Americans because they don't respect our constitution.
When Ron Paul is right, he is right. This is precisely what many of us have been saying about this ginned up pile of **** "controversy" since the hate merchants started feigning their faux "indignation" and phony self-righteous crapola that somehow their "precious little feelings are all butthurt" that anyone besides their ilk deserve the very same "rights" they DEMAND for themselves. These selective "Constitutionalist" Teabaggers are simply bigots by another name.
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
YouTube - Anti-muslim Rally at Ground Zero
This like this are bound to continue. This was a near miss. I'm talking about hate-crimes.
When Ron Paul is right, he is right. This is precisely what many of us have been saying about this ginned up pile of **** "controversy" since the hate merchants started feigning their faux "indignation" and phony self-righteous crapola that somehow their "precious little feelings are all butthurt" that anyone besides their ilk deserve the very same "rights" they DEMAND for themselves. These selective "Constitutionalist" Teabaggers are simply bigots by another name.
Ron Paul is a ****ing idiot, the inspiration behind 9-11 was purely motivated by religion, assertions to the contrary are a lie, if it were not for their religion they would not have been offended by the U.S. defending the Kingdom against the overt aggression from Saddam Hussein they would have been ****ing grateful for the U.S. spending it's blood and treasure to defend the Kingdom, it is only because of Islam that they see any infidel soldier on or near the holy dirt of Mecca and Medina as an occupation, so congrats Ron Paul you are a ****tard and wrong as usual. Ron Paul go read some Sayyid Qutb, study up on Qutb's formulation on the concept of Jahiliyya or STFU.
We do not see all Muslims as being responsible for 9-11 but we certainly recognize the causal relationship that the Islamist ideology had to play in the attacks and now we are pointing to the words and actions of a specific overt Islamist and saying "hey this **** aint right," and now we're being labeled bigots for having the audacity to exercise our first amendment rights to encourage others to exercise their individual right of self ownership not to enter into contractual obligations to trade their labour for their capital? Sorry that **** doesn't fly Mr. Paul you mother ****er, you don't get to defend the property and 1st amendment rights of overt ****ing Islamists and try to deny the very same rights to us or critisize us for exercising them, you are a ****ing hypocrite Mr. Paul of the highest order, go Jerk off to Lew Rockwell you stupid ****!
As much as I disagree with Paul & Son, for every 2 times they are wrong they are very, very right. Ron Paul is a very smart and honest man, and despite as much as I would disagree with him he is reiterating with anyone with half a brain already knew, that this is a distraction from the real issues effecting America and if nothing else is a product of the slow August news cycle. By October no one will even give a **** about this Muslim YMCA.
RP does recognize the role of Islamist ideology, but he also recognizes the role of American aggression. Our history in the Middle East is there for anyone to see who's interested. I've pointed out specific examples before, but the denial runs deep.
As much as I disagree with Paul & Son, for every 2 times they are wrong they are very, very right. Ron Paul is a very smart and honest man, and despite as much as I would disagree with him he is reiterating with anyone with half a brain already knew, that this is a distraction from the real issues effecting America and if nothing else is a product of the slow August news cycle. By October no one will even give a **** about this Muslim YMCA.
Hate crimes jinned-up by calling those against the Mosque ANTI-MUSLIM?
I'm pretty sure Rand disagrees with his father on this one.
A) The perceived occupation that Ron Paul refers to is the one which he has referred to on several different occasions by name. It is the American presence in the Arabian Peninsula, those troops were there to defend the Kingdom against the aggression of Saddam Hussein, if not for Islam they would not see the mere presence of American troops on their soil as an occupation especially since those troops were there to defend them, but because Islam teaches that no infidel can set foot on the holy dirt on or near Mecca and Medina they see it as an occupation.
B) Again cite specific examples of this aggression rather than making blanket over-generalized statements.
They don't want a u.s military base in their land. Would you agree if Russia or China decide to build a military inside the u.s?
ok why should they be a little pissed prior to 9/11 ?
Our unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinian.
Our support for the dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...
We installed the Shah in Iran in 1953. Back, when we were still allies with Saddam, we support Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq conflict, selling them chemical weapon among other things.
The bombing and sanctions/embargo in Iraq during the golf war which ensured the deaths of half a million children.
A) The perceived occupation that Ron Paul refers to is the one which he has referred to on several different occasions by name. It is the American presence in the Arabian Peninsula, those troops were there to defend the Kingdom against the aggression of Saddam Hussein, if not for Islam they would not see the mere presence of American troops on their soil as an occupation especially since those troops were there to defend them, but because Islam teaches that no infidel can set foot on the holy dirt on or near Mecca and Medina they see it as an occupation.
B) Again cite specific examples of this aggression rather than making blanket over-generalized statements.
"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."
"Loony Tunes" Ron Paul Translation: Neocons are the root of all evil, including New Coke. I can verify this by having a staffer look on the internet for me. It must be true.
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?