• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

Read OP


  • Total voters
    30
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.

I'll leave you and Ferris to argue about how acceptable it is. It's certainly demagoguery in that it's being used to whip up hysteria and distract from the real issues. Paul is bringing a much-needed sense of perspective. The fact that people are so worked up about this instead of the war or the economy is just sad.
 
Ron Paul is just light years ahead of the rest of his party.
 
Scarecrow asked it, and so have others. And Paul answered your question, too:

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 ****!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

60+ years of intervention? Cite specific examples. I can think of two, one was Iran which contains a completely different type of Muslim all together. The 2nd would be the First Gulf war which was entered into in order to A) Defend a neutral Arab-Muslim ally Kuwait which was more Muslim than the secular Baathist regime, and B) to defend the most important sites in the world to Muslims from the aggressions of Saddam Hussein.

After the war we did not steal the wealth and oil of the territory we liberated, because we didn't conquer Kuwait we intervened on the behalf of Muslims against the secularlist Saddam.
 
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.’

I'm going to be nit picky. Because I can't stand Pelosi and I think she's dishonest and a socialist? Maybe, in any case the day before she came out with this statement, she called for an investigation into the protestors and where THEIR funding was coming from. NO MENTION of funding of for the Mosque. Then she comes out next day with this statement making it look like she thinks the Mosque funding is important to know and the other is an after thought. Just like she demonized the Tea Party.
Sorry if this seems like a small thing, but it irritates the hell out of me.

Back to topic. I disagree with Paul except that I do feel this whole thing is a distraction.
 
The people who completely disagree should stop calling themselves Americans because they don't respect our constitution.
The people who boycott any business, TV or radio personality should do the same then.
 
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.

Gee... I'd didn't know the "constitutionalist teabaggers" had grown to 60-70 percent of the population. I guess they have no worries come Nov.
 
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

I find it interesting how many comments on that site that are hidden due to low content. ANyone that disagrees with Ron paul gets their post thumbed off the board. Ideologues and demagogues indeed!

Ron Paul is simply promoting his own brand. His assumption is that anyone that doesnt agree with the construction of the mosque on that location is a race hating demagogue is simple minded at best, probably 'just' foolish, and at worst, intentionally dishonest.
 
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.

Yet there are Muslims and even the democrat head of the senate that disagrees with you...
 
On the plus side...it is refreshing to once again see so many liberals coming out in the defense of religion. I am sure you will be just as staunch in your support come Christams time.
 
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.
 
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 ****!

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.

I'm pretty sure Rand disagrees with his father on this one.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

The YMCA offers weekly religious services to a specific religious group? This is not akin to the YMCA it is akin to the Evangelical Mega-Churches. In fact it is the EXACT Islamic parrallel of an Evangelical Mega-Church.
 
"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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Wait for it... wait for it...
 
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.

An occupation is an occupation, regardless of what religion you believe in. It's charming that you think we're there to defend Muslims against other Muslims, but such naivete generally isn't shared by those on the receiving end of our beneficence.

I've cited examples to you before. Until we can agree on the basic facts, for example the fact that the US intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure in Iraq, there's not much point in arguing about causes or effects.
 
"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.

Watch the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares some time. It's an enlightening comparison of the neoconservative and Islamist ideologies. The two are very similar in some ways, particularly in their deep suspicion toward Western democracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom