PDA

View Full Version : New York Magazine: Ron Paul supports Mosque, gets upset at Pelosi by mistake




Knightskye
08-23-2010, 01:05 PM
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/ron_paul_supports_the_mosque_g.html


"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."

Er, no. While Nancy Pelosi did call for "transparency" about the mosque's funding, the only "investigation" she got behind (and not necessarily a Congressional one at that) was one into the funding of the mosque opposition. Just replace "the House Speaker" with Rick Lazio, Peter King, or George Pataki, and it makes more sense.

He did mess that up, but it's not a big mistake. Pretty desperate to poke fun at Ron Paul.

Uriel999
08-23-2010, 01:29 PM
Meh, he can still be mad at Pelosi for any other reason he likes. :D

Knightskye
08-23-2010, 01:44 PM
Meh, he can still be mad at Pelosi for any other reason he likes. :D

Pick a card, any card. :)

specsaregood
08-23-2010, 01:46 PM
He did mess that up, but it's not a big mistake. Pretty desperate to poke fun at Ron Paul.

Unless of course she has proposed such an investigation behind closed doors. It is very possible that Dr. Paul has heard things we have not.

erowe1
08-23-2010, 01:49 PM
Unless of course she has proposed such an investigation behind closed doors. It is very possible that Dr. Paul has heard things we have not.

I doubt that. Plus, I doubt that RP is the one who wrote that anyway.

specsaregood
08-23-2010, 01:50 PM
I doubt that.

I doubt that the possibility has not been battered around. Most likely the dems asking around to see how much support it would get from other reps and their constituents.

erowe1
08-23-2010, 01:56 PM
To be honest, I've kind of stayed out of the whole mosque thing, and I haven't even really kept up with all the news of who said what when on it, but I tend to think RP's press release about it was a mistake, or at least major parts of it were. It seemed like he was saying that everyone who protests the mosque being built there is trying to violate the Muslims' property rights and freedom of religion, which I don't think is the case. I remember early on there was a group that tried to get NYC to shut it down some how, I don't remember exactly what they were trying to do, but ever since that failed it seems like most people I've heard speak out against it, especially recently, made clear that they didn't deny the Muslims had a right to do it only that they thought they shouldn't. It seemed to me like RP poked conservatives in the eye needlessly when some of these are the same people we're going to be trying to court for support in 2012.

1000-points-of-fright
08-23-2010, 02:12 PM
No, he got it right. He just left out the other half.


Pelosi added that she supports the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that "We agree with the Anti-Defamation League 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."

NYDailynews.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/18/2010-08-18_nancy_pelosi_house_speaker_wants_investigation_ into_ground_zero_mosque_oppositio.html)

Kludge
08-23-2010, 02:18 PM
No, he got it right. He just left out the other half.



NYDailynews.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/18/2010-08-18_nancy_pelosi_house_speaker_wants_investigation_ into_ground_zero_mosque_oppositio.html)

"Need for transparency" isn't necessarily a call for a government investigation, which the story in the OP implies. OP story's still pretty weak, though.

Knightskye
08-27-2010, 08:58 PM
To be honest, I've kind of stayed out of the whole mosque thing, and I haven't even really kept up with all the news of who said what when on it, but I tend to think RP's press release about it was a mistake, or at least major parts of it were. It seemed like he was saying that everyone who protests the mosque being built there is trying to violate the Muslims' property rights and freedom of religion, which I don't think is the case.

Ron Paul made the principled case for property rights. It appears there are some principles "conservatives" won't stand for.