User Comments on Ron Paul's Mosque Take

[KramerDSP]

This is a recurring thread, where I post user comments following national stories where RP is in the spotlight. Some of the comments excited me, while others made me groan. That's usually par for the course. I like to get an idea of where people stand when it comes to the man, and the comments help a little. Beware, as the comments here are from Kossacks.

Daily KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/23/6153/09850) - Ron Paul Enters Mosque Debate - Tears Apart 'Neo-Cons'


One thing you have to say about him... (61+ / 0-)

... he sticks to his guns and his principles, tells (what he thinks is) the truth, and lets the chips fall where they may.

In that respect, it would be nice to have about 500 more of him in Washington.

I have to admit that I like his stand on certain issues -- the wars, the drug war, the Patriot Act. He falls flat on taxation, though, not wanting to raise taxes on the rich to get the government's financial house in order. That's a dealbreaker for me.


I too like some of pauls stuff.. (2+ / 0-)

But not on economics,scope of governemnt or the right to abortion issue. On this I have never seen Pauol as a true libertarian. His son is a diffrent matter altogether.. He is a corpratist. This is why they see property rights as a higher goal than personal liberty and the protection the government is here to give against abuses. They side wiht the corporation...not the people..


that might be a trade worth considering (1+ / 0-)
if US is bankrupt, financially & foreign policy/morally, everybody will be too depressed to conceive babies anyway :)
Even IF Roe v Wade were overturned at federal level, that would just mean the issue would go back to the states, which is manageable.

So given the choice between a sound economy & state legislation on abortion, vs. bankruptcy & status quo on abortion, the former seems like a reasonable option.


Yep, this is pure and simple pandering from Paul (14+ / 0-)

trying to moderate his image, as he does from time to time. Distracts the media from his other less pleasant attributes.

Jesus fucking christ. How many times do these Paulites have to be hit over the head with facts?

Ron Paul is a frigging quack.

Ron Paul is an enabler for Neo Nazis.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution.

Ron Paul doesn't deserve anyone's support, least of all progressives.

Don't be fooled by this stopped clock that happens to have gone dead at the correct time.


PANDERING?!?!?! Srsly? To WHO?!?!?! (12+ / 0-)

Pandering? What the hell does he have to gain politically from this? I mean really. The guy's district is in TEXAS. You think this statement's gonna be popular 'round there?

Yes yes yes, I know. Gold Standard, loved by Stormfront, published racist-ass newsletters, various other wacko shit, his sperm spawned a child that he named after noted pro-rape hack author Ayn Rand, etc.

Doesn't change the fact that dude consistently spits hellfire at the Drug and Neocon wars, saw the Patriot Act for what it really was when everyone else was saluting, and ripped out Giuliani's heart like Kano in Mortal Kombat on live TV. When he gets it right, he gets it REALLY RIGHT.

He doesn't give a fuck about "moderating his image". Why would he? He's not running for higher office.


I think one can only appreciate these stands from (13+ / 0-)

Paul if one is able to discard the "search for a perfect savior" that we imbue our politics with. Hell, none of us is really as pure and unpolluted in our ideology as we often demand our leaders be.

I don't inherently like Paul; but when he stands up for civil liberties and the constitution, I'll cheer nonetheless. One doesn't have to agree with everything anyone says (actually, one shouldn't) in order to appreciate the good that they do say.

That's an important life lesson it took me a while to figure out.

[KramerDSP]

Second part...


Throwing the baby out with the bathwater (1+ / 0-)

I think your hatred of Paul is just as much demagogory as the anti mosque people.. Yes Paul is not correty in many ways.. more than I could probably count however on some things his views are correct. To deny that and or minimize that is unjust and you are bieng a demagog. If he is anti war, Torture, violation of civil liberties and anti prohibition.. then I can agree with that.. all the other stuff.. nope. Do I have to like someone for thier stated postion to be correct? no but you assume yes . Why? I would pose its a religous opionin from you based on past deeds etc.. people change, views change and I have to give him the beneffit of the doubt or I would be just as irrational as a teabagger...


He had the balls to vote against PATRIOT (11+ / 0-)

That's civil liberty street cred 4 LIFE


He's Not the Devil (0+ / 0-)

Yeah, Ron Paul's F'ing nuts. But he can be right about something. He can be right about everything he says here about this mosque, about these wars, about these neocons. And he is right.

Why not? Just as the diarist says, Paul is totally wrong about economics. But he is right about this mosque and its related/underlying issues. Which is why we're discussing his views on them: we agree with them, because he's right.

There's no need to demonize him. He's not some kind of devil. If you can't accept someone's right about something they're right about, you're wrong. And being wrong is no way to either be right, or to win over anyone else worth having.


Come on- Ron Paul is right. (0+ / 0-)

Sad to say, more right than a good number of spineless dems.


Tea Party: Ron Paul meets the Life of Brian (47+ / 0-)


I agree--Sometimes I really admire RP (24+ / 0-)

Sometimes he has shown more guts and rigorous thinking than many Dems.

This is a straightforward issue of religious freedom and equality under the law.

There should be no equivocating.

Thanks for the diary.


Ron Paul gives us hope (17+ / 0-)

There should be a creative dialogue between social democrats (who are usually called progressives in the U.S.) and libertarians like Paul. At this time they may be the only force in this country that is either sane or not completely corrupt.

I've long argued that there needs to be an alliance between the libertarian right and the progressive left, particularly on one of the most important issues we face which is the Imperial project and it's resultant national security state. I urge us all to consider this. This imperial project supported enthusiastically by all major Democratic Party figures must be the litmus test for progressive support. It is eating up our country and we must remember that it's main task is to ensure the domination of the oil economy in the world. The interests of the imperialists is to control the oil supply and therefore control the world. In that way the debt the government has taken on will never have to be repaid--this may seem a benefit but our Mother Earth cannot tolerate this. In the end that is what the agitation over the mosque is about--keeping up the consensus for perpetual war, i.e., the Empire.


While I disagree with Paul 95% of the time, his voice is a powerful one and might get through to sane republicans (are there any left?). I'm truly afraid somebody, somewhere is going to get killed over this. Not to mention the inflaming of young, angry, extremist muslim minds. This whole manufactured "controversy" puts us at risk for increasing terrorism. Remember the Times Square Bomber?


Ron Paul is the Rorschach test of politics (1+ / 0-)

Listen to him long enough and you will hear something you like.

[KramerDSP]

We would never get the Kossacks votes in a General Election, while the Republicans would hold their noses and elect Paul over Obama (at least I think they would). Those on the far left have equivocated the name and image of Ron Paul with that of someone who would let corporations run amok. At the same time, it is interesting to note that there are a few on that site who are defending him.

Meanwhile, on the right, there is a blog out there with a ridiculous story attempting to connect the thinkings of Paul and his foreign policy with the thinking of the Iman of the NYC Mosque, and associating the two as a result.

Iman Rauf and Ron Paul -- bedfellows (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027062.php)

Methinks the Independents who read and agreed with his take on this issue are looking around next to them at the reactions of the "loony left" and "batshit insane right", and thinking "If the Democrats and the Republicans hate Ron Paul, he must be doing something right"

[Daamien]

Good reception overall. Ron doesn't care about his personal image; rather he is uncompromising in his care for spreading liberty. This is why the liberty movement can have success at appealing to a diverse group of people across the political, economic, religious, and racial spectrum.

[BlackTerrel]

What are Kossacks?

[KramerDSP]

Good reception overall. Ron doesn't care about his personal image; rather he is uncompromising in his care for spreading liberty. This is why the liberty movement can have success at appealing to a diverse group of people across the political, economic, religious, and racial spectrum.

Actually, most of the responses were rather negative. My eyes started glazing over as I got angrier reading some of the comments. I had to cherry pick a bit. I would say the comments were 70% "he's right on this one stinking lousy issue, but how dare you support him" and 30% "yo, back off, he's not all that bad of a guy".

[Daamien]

Actually, most of the responses were rather negative. My eyes started glazing over as I got angrier reading some of the comments. I had to cherry pick a bit. I would say the comments were 70% "he's right on this one stinking lousy issue, but how dare you support him" and 30% "yo, back off, he's not all that bad of a guy".

I'm thinking relatively. I bet Ron has vastly higher favorables on that site than any other elected Republican. The responses were better than what I expected.

[Jack Bauer]

What are Kossacks?

Far left idiots who "support" civil liberties and then vote for statist Democrats. :D

[angelatc]

Tea Party: Ron Paul meets the Life of Brian (47+ / 0-)

Brilliant!

[KramerDSP]

Brilliant!

I know! It is so fitting. I'm watching the DVD again this week, but that's a great quote.

[KramerDSP]

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, fuck off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we fuck off, O Lord?

I think almost all of us have been guilty of the above at some moment of the R3volution.


"Brian: No, no. Please, please please listen. I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Man in crowd: Shhh!
Brian: You've all got to work it out for yourselves.
The Crowd: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
Brian: Exactly!
The Crowd: Tell us more!
Brian: No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do! Otherwise - Ow! Ow!"

Once again, self explanatory.

[RM918]

What are Kossacks?

Anyone who frequents DailyKos, I'd imagine... Kos + sacks = Kossacks.

[someperson]

I have to say... After spending the past hour or so scanning blogs and articles on this subject, I think I've seen the "broken clock" rationalization about 30,949,435,803,485 times (not an estimate). The "broken clock" has become a "broken record." I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt them much ;)

[KramerDSP]

I have to say... After spending the past hour or so scanning blogs and articles on this subject, I think I've seen the "broken clock" rationalization about 30,949,435,803,485 times (not an estimate). The "broken clock" has become a "broken record." I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt them much ;)

That, and "I often don't agree with him but on this, he's right".


Read this somewhere :-)


"Wow, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense on foreign policy, but the rest of his views are CRAZY.".


"Wow, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense on the drug war, but the rest of his views are CRAAAAAZY".


"Wow, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense on the Patriot Act, but the rest of his views are CRAAAAAAZZZYYYYY".


"Wow, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense on closing Gitmo, but the rest of his views are INSANE!"

So, like, which of his views are insane?

[BlackTerrel]

Anyone who frequents DailyKos, I'd imagine... Kos + sacks = Kossacks.

Aha. Makes sense. Thanks.

[Monarchist]

What the hell were you doing on Daily Kos?

[paulitics]

Get ready for Gerald Celente's prediction of a progressive/libertarian party to come true.
Civil libertarians will unite and will be the central theme of the new party.

Unfortunately, just like there is a rift in the tea party on foreign policy, there will be a rift in economic views in this new party.

But, we should take advantage of the trend now, start the party ourselves and clearly define a set of principles, before it is defined for us and can be hijacked by George Soros and other troublemakers.

This party will be large, and will offer a chance for Ron Paul to educate millions of young progressives about economics.

[SWATH]

Yeah if I have to hear another qualifier caveat again I'm going to puke my balls out of my mouth.

"He's right on this one but he's (crazy, batshit, insane, racist, wrong the other 95% of the time, a broken clock...)

Stupid fucking retards, his justification for being right on this issue is the same principle behind every other issue that you think he is wrong about.

"I agree with him that Muslims have property rights and therefore can build a mosque there if they wants to, but Paul is crazy if he is against taxation. Nobody should have the right to the fruits of their labor, especially rich people!"

Idiots, just as dumb as the idiot hypocrites protesting the mosque. Even Glen Beck's dimwitted salivating neocon sidekick suggested NY use Eminent Domain to seize the property to prevent the mosque construction. The sheer hypocrisy is like Al Gore saying...anything.

[someperson]

Even Glen Beck's dimwitted salivating neocon sidekick suggested NY use Eminent Domain to seize the property to prevent the mosque construction.
wow lol

[Anti Federalist]

Ron's full statement for those who haven't read it yet:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2010/08/22/mosque-demagoguery-is-bipartisan/


Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

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.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

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.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

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.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

[djdellisanti4]

I like they say he is wrong about economics, very funny. Where did these guys learn economics anyway, the back of a Cheerio's box? Anyway, I could see some liberals like them voting for Paul over Obama so long as we bring up Obama's horrible Civil Liberties track record.

[Jack Bauer]

I like they say he is wrong about economics, very funny. Where did these guys learn economics anyway, the back of a Cheerio's box? Anyway, I could see some liberals like them voting for Paul over Obama so long as we bring up Obama's horrible Civil Liberties track record.

Its has been documented in several studies that lefties don't understand economics. When you say broken window, they'd think of a window that has been broken.

If they understood economics, they'd be classical liberals/ libertarians not Democrat voting lefties.

[One Last Battle!]

BLAH BLAH HE DOESN'T SUPPORT ABORTION HE IS AN AUTHORITARIAN NOT A LIBERTARIAN

HE IS A RACIST

HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

etc etc

[akforme]

What the hell were you doing on Daily Kos?

One of my favorite sites is democratic underground. I don't ever post, but god is it funny. They think they are so fucking smart, yet they are so fucking clueless to what actually happens.

[K466]

Interesting, I wonder how many daily Kooks would vote for Paul vs. Obama.

[surf]

appologize for writing this the 100th time, but it is the "crossover" votes that can win us a nomination.

everyone knows the BO will be the D candidate and so we must assume that his followers will be quiet and less than motivated during the primary season. there will be no novelty of historically electing a female or an African American.

and these folks that are anti-drug war, anti-war, anti-patriot act., etc. are probably many of "our" friends (no, i don't have a rat in my pocket, but by "our" i mean folks on this board).

here's the message to spread to your D friends: Obama is continuing war, he's continuing the Patriot Act, he's continuing the drug-war, and he bailed out Wall Street. bailing out Wall Street pisses everybody off (unless you work for Golden Sachs).

in the primary season we will want to point out BOs inconsistencies and try to persuade our D friends that a vote for RP will either a) be good for them, or b) prevent a neocon from running against BO, or c) send a message to BO.

[paulitics]

appologize for writing this the 100th time, but it is the "crossover" votes that can win us a nomination.

everyone knows the BO will be the D candidate and so we must assume that his followers will be quiet and less than motivated during the primary season. there will be no novelty of historically electing a female or an African American.

and these folks that are anti-drug war, anti-war, anti-patriot act., etc. are probably many of "our" friends (no, i don't have a rat in my pocket, but by "our" i mean folks on this board).

here's the message to spread to your D friends: Obama is continuing war, he's continuing the Patriot Act, he's continuing the drug-war, and he bailed out Wall Street. bailing out Wall Street pisses everybody off (unless you work for Golden Sachs).

in the primary season we will want to point out BOs inconsistencies and try to persuade our D friends that a vote for RP will either a) be good for them, or b) prevent a neocon from running against BO, or c) send a message to BO.

The mosque story has pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the tea party.

But what Ron Paul just did was plant the seads and pour fertilizer on a new progressive/libertarian party whether people realize on this board or not.

War with Iran is probable, moe civil liberites violations are inevitable. The whole power structure in government is about to change, and the transition is well on its way.

We need to get out in front of these enormous changes coming up, and anticipate the incredible tidal wave of pissed off people that will dwarf the tea parties that will be coming from the left. If we get out in front, we can prevent the left wing media from hijacking it for a socialist agenda.

[angelatc]

One of my favorite sites is democratic underground. I don't ever post, but god is it funny. They think they are so fucking smart, yet they are so fucking clueless to what actually happens.

Me too. They are the definitely the dumbest liberals on the internet.

[Chieppa1]

"totally wrong on economics". That makes me laugh every time.

[puppetmaster]

Brilliant!

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me.
Reg: Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

[freshjiva]

Haha, its funny how some people accuse Ron Paul for siding with corporations and is "flat out wrong" on economics. I just find myself wondering why people slander a guy who just came out and broke partisan politics and happened to agree with you on a civil rights issue.

We really need someone to make a video of Ron Paul's historical statements and writings that predicted the 2008 crisis, dollar depreciation, and the effects of a ballooning national debt.