Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque Plans In Ramadan

'
...continuously since 1789.

Guess who

What is your point, Schlack?
Yours,
Issodhos

Schlacky is trying to make analogous that Mr. Paul is a Libertarian and that you're a Libertarian, and clearly, Mr. Paul speaks for all Libertarians, apparently.

point being that one Wouldnt automatically accuse Dr Paul of pandering to dinner guests, yet his statement reflects many of the same sentiments (initially) stated by Obama..... strange that isnt it.

and many of those are shared by the posters here, irrespective of the property issue!

I was wondering if you would like to withdraw/correct part of your opening post.


(and Yes, bow to your leader Dr. Paul)

Ron Paul subscribes to an odd flavor of Libertarianism. I am always amused when Libertarians get into pissing contests about each others' "purity."

Yours in nascent anticipation.

I think, NW, that you will find that I have on more than one occassion in this forum made it clear that the human critter is a messy, fuzzy, sloppy critter so any attempt at seeking perfection or "purity" would be time ill-spent. Sorry to disappoint. Perhaps Washington in Review or the McLaughlin Group might provide the "pissing contest" you seek.:-))
Yours,
Issodhos

Oh, goodness no, Schlack. Why would I want to do that? When I wrote, "This is a private property issue, not a religeous issue, and the two should not be conflated simply because a pol wants to pander to his Ramadan dinner guests. the only "commitment" that should be "unshakable" in this instance is property rights. In this case the property is privately owned and, to my knowledge, there are no restrictions against building regious buildings on it, so that should settle the matter. All the rest is politics.", I meant every word. The owners of the property have an absolute right to build a Mosque on their property. I re-enforced that idea later when I wrote, "The issue is simple, the right to build on one's own property sans any pre-existing restrictions. That means, "case closed"." And yet again when I wrote, "Is not the issue laid to rest constitutionally based purely on property rights?"

I would suggest that even collectivists will eventually recognize that I am fully defending the owner's right to build on this property without interference from any government agency or from protester demands.

The second part of my opening post was, "As to the reasons given for building it, I have to say I think it is a load of bull chit, and if the goal of the group behind building the place was for bringing divergent peoples together (Hah!) then they would not be building it within two blocks of a location that stirs great emotion in New Yorkers." Notice that I did not demand they show any sensitivity to the protesters, but I did make it clear that, in my opinion, the owner's actions belie their Kumbaya peace, harmony, and ain't-we-all-wonderful motives. Live with it. I also made it quite clear that the protesters were within their right to petition an protest, though it should count for nothing from a rights-based perspective. Don't like protesters that have a differing opinion? Get over it.

So, sorry to disappoint, but I see little that Ron Paul and I would differ on (by the way, instead of reading the cut-and-dice version from the propaganda site you listed, read Pauls comments in context here ).

And finally, when I wrote, "Even more simple: Is congress attempting to make a law which would establishing this or any other religion? No. Is the Congress trying to make a law that would restrict the owners of this property from building their Mosque and exercising their religion? No. Is any governmental body preventing them from doing so? No.

So, want to try using the 14th Amendment? Are the owners of this property being denied equal protection under the law by the Federal, state, or local government? No. That puts to rest attempts to inject the First Amendment into the argument. Case closed before it is even opened.

Do the citizens have a right to protest and to petition? Yes. Does that mean that they are violating the rights of the owners of the property? No.

Until a governmental body passes a regulation or law that prohibits all religious structures within "X" number of blocks, or singles out a prohibition against one specific religion, the First Amendment issue is a false issue.", there should be no question as to what my position is.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

I agree with you, however it is now not only a private property issue because some have chosen to make it an issue in a populist attempt to build upon a certain wellsrping of islamophobia that was drilled in the run up to and throughtout the iraq war and occupation.

Are you seriously suggestion that gallons of grade A anti islam bullshirt was not pumped out through every available orifice to whip up war sentiment? (building of course on the fact that the attackers were islamic - but the suggestion is that th eonly reason for the 9/11 attack was islam, an islamophobic notion in itself!) We are seeing it now regurtitated for continued political effect.

to say its a provate property issue is to ignore the context and history, but sure when should all that interfere with the divine rite of property? its never happened before and will never happen again eh?

strange that some of the theories you ascribe too only survive in isolation....