Hypocrite Notice

[Conchaga]

How can you say Libertarians, Objectivists, and Anarcho-Capitalists are far right?

Is that a typo?

Libertarians are for the legalization of marijuana, for starters. They speak out against national IDs. Libertarians want to move to a more isolationist state, where the US isn't the FUCK YEAH world police.

Objectivists are all about personal freedom and abolishment of ANY religious involvement in the government. In fact, they believe in a lassies fare form of government. Not to be confused with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-Capitalists are wacked-out educational idealists with their noses buried deep within Aristotle and Leonard Peikoff's asses.

All three of those are VERY centrist.

To be clearer allow me to explain the new political paradigm.

The Right wing wants less economical government, but lots of limits on personal freedoms, because the Bible, Qur'an, or the Old Testament tell them so. Beware: Religious Zealotry and Fascism abound.

The Left want less laws against personal freedoms, but stricter economical ones, because Marx, Mao, and Kant said so. Beware: Communist Fascism exists here.

Centrists want more personal AND economical freedoms and don't think there should be sanctions against either until people die, because Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan say so. Beware: Big companies charge what they want.

Anarchists/Nihilists want no form of government whatsoever and think that we should live life how we want, regardless of how it affects others, because nothing means anything and Kierkegaard and Nietzsche said so. Beware: nothing, because it doesn't matter anyway.

There are your four quadrants of the political spectrum. Not just the two sides of a very outdated political scale.

 

[Cassie]

Suppose a right wing fundamentalist type Christian group had bought that property and wanted to put a memorial there that among other things provided truthful information about the persons that committed the crime, the types of people they were, and their reasoning behind their actions. When the Muslims demand the "inflammatory" information be removed, who here is going to argue that the fundamentalist type Christian group's constitutional and private property rights should be protected?

I would support the Christian fundies constitutional right to use the private property however they choose. I probably wouldn't like it, just as I don't really like the Islamic center being built there. The Muslims are free to make demands, just as everyone else is, that doesn't mean there will be legal action taken.

I'd still like to know who you think the hypocrites are.

 

[Conchaga]

THEY'RE ALL HYPOCRITES, CASSIE!

ME TOO!

NOT REALLY!

FUCK YOU!

YOU HAVE NO OPINION!

 

[Cassie]

I ALMOST MEEP'D YOU

 

[eloisel]

I'd still like to know who you think the hypocrites are.

No one in particular and quite a few who post in this forum with regularity.

If Bush were President and he said what Obama said about the Ground Zero Mosque project there would be posters screaming that he should keep his opinion to himself because it looks like he is giving his approval to something insensitive and cruel to Americans in general. That it looks like he condones the actions of the terrorists that attacked this country and destroyed the lives of so many. That he must be doing it because of oil. And, it would have something to do with a baseball team and companies he hasn't owned in a decade or two. And, it would have some benefit to Cheney because he worked for Haliburton before he was VP. And, why hasn't anyone done anything about the seawall barriers along the coast yet? Does Obama not care about black people either? And, how the hell did that oil spill happen in the first place? And, the only reasons why the troops are leaving Iraq a couple of weeks ahead of schedule is to distract the American public from thinking too much about Michelle's recent vacation and the mosque project. etc., etc., etc.

Actually, I agree that there is little that Obama should do about this situation. On the surface it is a private property issue. However, as was pointed out above, the Muslim community and especially its leadership should be sensitive to the location. I guarantee you the Muslim community and leadership would demand that Americans be sensitive to their views and emotional issues. Or, has everyone forgotten the cartoon incident, setting cars on fire, and all that?

I don't hate Obama. I just find it interesting that Obama gets a free ride when if it were Bush doing the very same thing it would be viewed very differently and very negatively.

 

[eloisel]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday called for a probe into the funding of efforts to oppose building a mosque and Islamic community center a few blocks away from "Ground Zero" in New York City.

Interesting.

 

[Conchaga]

IRONY MOMENT!

The official answer as to why we attacked Iraq is that we were freeing their people and the world from a horrible dictator: Saddam Hussein.

That means, we sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans to defend MUSLIMS!

 

[Cassie]

But eloisel, Obama isn't getting a free ride, lots of people (on the left and the right) are critical of his statements, regardless of what he says, or if he's right or wrong.

I don't know why you'd even bring up Bush. Do you honestly think he would have handled the situation in the same way? If this had happened during his presidency, and he had made similar statements regarding religious freedom, I would have been impressed.

The cartoon incident didn't occur in the US. I have no idea how that would have played out here, but as I said before, Muslims have just as much right to make demands as anyone else in this country. It doesn't mean their demands will be met, necessarily, but they can protest the things they disagree with because this is a free country, or it used to be. What bugs me is the fact that newspapers and TV stations in the US haven't allowed depictions of Muhammad as political statements. What good is freedom of speech if no one is brave enough to use it?

 

[VITRIOL]

What good is freedom of speech if no one is brave enough to use it?

It's still useful as one of those empty political platitudes, like "values", "accountability" or "ethics".

 

['Gear]

It's still useful as one of those empty political platitudes, like "values", "accountability" or "ethics".

Yeah those are about as useful as the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

 

[VITRIOL]

Yeah those are about as useful as the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

The biggest problem with constitutional "rights" is they're only as reliable as the people interpreting and safeguarding them. Yeah, I try not to actually think about that too much.

It's a buzzkill.

 

[eloisel]

IRONY MOMENT!

The official answer as to why we attacked Iraq is that we were freeing their people and the world from a horrible dictator: Saddam Hussein.

That means, we sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans to defend MUSLIMS!

I don't believe that was the reason why we attacked Iraq. However, it seems to be the reason why we've stayed, and stayed, and stayed.

As I recall, at the beginning, the perception we gave the Muslim world, and to which most of them were in agreement, was that we were going to go in and get weapons of mass destruction. There was good reason to believe that Saddam had them and would use them. As I recall, the Saudi King pretty much said "get in, get the WMD, get out." Well, we went in, we didn't find WMD, so we should have left. Long, long time ago.

 

[eloisel]

But eloisel, Obama isn't getting a free ride, lots of people (on the left and the right) are critical of his statements, regardless of what he says, or if he's right or wrong.

I think he is getting off very light about this particular issue in this forum. If it had been Bush, then I wouldn't have had to start anything on it because someone, possibly many others, would have been in here screaming right away.

I don't know why you'd even bring up Bush. Do you honestly think he would have handled the situation in the same way? If this had happened during his presidency, and he had made similar statements regarding religious freedom, I would have been impressed.

I can't say what Bush would have done but it wouldn't have surprised me if he took the same stance. However, I bring up Bush because Bush is still the whipping boy. And, I think that it really wouldn't matter what he would have done, if anything, there would have been screaming about it being all manner of wrong by posters on this board in this forum.

The cartoon incident didn't occur in the US. I have no idea how that would have played out here, but as I said before, Muslims have just as much right to make demands as anyone else in this country. It doesn't mean their demands will be met, necessarily, but they can protest the things they disagree with because this is a free country, or it used to be.

Agreed - Muslims have the right to protest just like everybody else. However, you will find more sympathy from the left to allow Muslims to practice their religion, to have their free speech, to protest, to make demands than you will find sympathy for Christians to have the same rights. I am talking about the microcosm of TK now, even though I think that pretty much applies to the United States as a whole as well.

What bugs me is the fact that newspapers and TV stations in the US haven't allowed depictions of Muhammad as political statements. What good is freedom of speech if no one is brave enough to use it?

I don't think it is very surprising, really. While Bush was a big fan of freedom of speech - consider his remarks about the Dixie Chicks - I think he was also wise in trying to protect American Muslims from backlash over 911 and Obama has continued that stance. I imagine that newspaper editors around the country, as irresponsible as they may be at times, realize the wisdom in not setting a match to that mountain of kindling. The real issue of freedom of speech in this country isn't about Muslims but the way Americans are trying to take it away from each other.

 

[Cassie]

You think Obama is getting off light for defending religious freedom? Why should he be taken to task for defending the constitution? I just don't get where you're coming from on this issue. Is it a tit for tat thing? Are you unwilling to support anything Obama says simply because so many had issues with the things Bush said?

I really think if this had occurred during Bush's presidency, and he had made the same statements, people would have been pleasantly surprised. It wouldn't have made them suddenly fall in love with him, but maybe they'd have thought a little better of him. The constitution isn't just for white Christians, it's for all Americans.

The left probably has more sympathy for Muslims, at the moment, because they are the ones having to fight for their rights. The Christians in this country don't have to worry about where they build their churches, or having their speech censored, or any other rights that might be denied based on their beliefs.

 

[eloisel]

You think Obama is getting off light for defending religious freedom? Why should he be taken to task for defending the constitution? I just don't get where you're coming from on this issue. Is it a tit for tat thing? Are you unwilling to support anything Obama says simply because so many had issues with the things Bush said?

I think that if Bush had interjected himself into the Mosque Ground Zero project that this would be an entirely different conversation - regardless of what Bush may have said about the subject.

I don't think Obama said it to defend the Constitution. I think he said it to get the Muslim vote.

I can't help but wonder why this was ever an issue. The group that wants to build the Mosque at Ground Zero project only have $18,500 of the millions of dollars it will require to build the project. It has taken them a couple of years just to get that much. I wonder how much money has been channeled to them now that they have received all this media attention. Poor little Muslims facing all this discrimination in this country and can't even afford to build a mosque on some seriously high priced real estate! And, Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate those that oppose a Muslim project on the site.

I really think if this had occurred during Bush's presidency, and he had made the same statements, people would have been pleasantly surprised. It wouldn't have made them suddenly fall in love with him, but maybe they'd have thought a little better of him.

I don't agree. Those are the same people that held him responsible for three hurricanes making landfall and doing lots of damage. It was all his fault, you know, because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol.

The constitution isn't just for white Christians, it's for all Americans.

Here lately it hasn't been for white Christians at all.

The left probably has more sympathy for Muslims, at the moment, because they are the ones having to fight for their rights. The Christians in this country don't have to worry about where they build their churches, or having their speech censored, or any other rights that might be denied based on their beliefs.

Where in this country are the Muslims fighting for their rights to build their places of worship? Where are they having their speech censored? What rights are they being denied based on their beliefs?

 

[Cassie]

Obama didn't "interject" himself into the mosque debate. He was addressing guests of the iftar dinner at the White House, you know for Ramadan. The mosque controversy was already in full swing, how could he avoid making a comment on it? I think it would have been irresponsible of him not to remind people that the US guarantees religious freedoms.

Jesus, do you realize how small the Muslim population in the US is? Having their "vote" will only make a difference in a few local areas of the country.

The right wing media is to blame for making the mosque an issue. Sarah Palin is to blame for making the mosque an issue. If she hadn't called for peaceful Muslims to "refudiate" the mosque I doubt most of the world would have been aware of it. Whether the group building the mosque has the money to do so or not, or how many donations they have received hasn't anything to do with their right to build it. I have no idea why Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the people opposed to the mosque. She's an idiot, imo (I'm sure you agree).

No one held Bush responsible for the hurricanes. They held him responsible for the response to the hurricanes. They held him responsible for putting his buddy in charge of FEMA instead of someone with experience. Did some of the shit go too far? Yeah, I think it did. Bush didn't really do much different than any other president, he was just the one to have a big disaster occur while he was in office. Not really his fault, just business as usual.

You started this thread. I thought you knew we were discussing the plans for a mosque near "ground zero". If some politicians get what they want the Muslims will be denied their right to build their place of worship.

 

[Sarek]

I have no idea why Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the people opposed to the mosque. She's an idiot, imo (I'm sure you agree).

Pelosi wants to link it to a right wing extremest group like the Tea baggers. It would go nicely with the rights anti gay stance and for some, cement the notion that the right is mainly about racism and bigotry.

 

[eloisel]

Obama didn't "interject" himself into the mosque debate. He was addressing guests of the iftar dinner at the White House, you know for Ramadan. The mosque controversy was already in full swing, how could he avoid making a comment on it? I think it would have been irresponsible of him not to remind people that the US guarantees religious freedoms.

Jesus, do you realize how small the Muslim population in the US is? Having their "vote" will only make a difference in a few local areas of the country.

The right wing media is to blame for making the mosque an issue. Sarah Palin is to blame for making the mosque an issue. If she hadn't called for peaceful Muslims to "refudiate" the mosque I doubt most of the world would have been aware of it. Whether the group building the mosque has the money to do so or not, or how many donations they have received hasn't anything to do with their right to build it. I have no idea why Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the people opposed to the mosque. She's an idiot, imo (I'm sure you agree).

No one held Bush responsible for the hurricanes. They held him responsible for the response to the hurricanes. They held him responsible for putting his buddy in charge of FEMA instead of someone with experience. Did some of the shit go too far? Yeah, I think it did. Bush didn't really do much different than any other president, he was just the one to have a big disaster occur while he was in office. Not really his fault, just business as usual.

You started this thread. I thought you knew we were discussing the plans for a mosque near "ground zero". If some politicians get what they want the Muslims will be denied their right to build their place of worship.

Actually, my initial post was and my position still is that if it were Bush who interjected, made statements about, got involved with in any manner, no matter how minute, expected, or in agreement some were, there would be a thread on TK about how wrong Bush was to interject himself, make statements about, get involved with in any manner, no matter how minute, expected, or in agreement some were.

I've tried to stay out of the political mess this administration. I didn't care for any of the candidates and I am extremely disappointed in the politics of this country at this time. I worry mostly about local politics because that is where I work but local politics aren't ruled by political parties. Where we are affected is by federal grant funding for police, fire, emergency preparedness, distribution of funding for homelessness prevention, money for free/low cost health and dental clinics, shelters, programs for people with HIV, etc.

I wish Obama and Sarah Palin would have an illicit romance and Michelle would kick the shit out of Sarah and they'd all wind up in jail for being drunk and disorderly. Afterwards they would be on the Jerry Springer show and Obama would smoke cigarettes with his shirt off and talk smack to Sarah's husband.

I imagine if any politician got their way about not building a mosque at ground zero it would be because that politician is a Democrat. Last I heard they were still the controlling party all over the place.

What is the right wing media these days? I don't watch TV and I rarely listen to talk radio. I see the Yahoo news and that is about it. Is Yahoo News right wing media?

 

[eloisel]

Pelosi wants to link it to a right wing extremest group like the Tea baggers. It would go nicely with the rights anti gay stance and for some, cement the notion that the right is mainly about racism and bigotry.

It is my understanding from Yahoo News reports that many New Yorkers are not real thrilled with the idea either. Is New York City mainly about racism and bigotry?

I was piqued by your remark on the McDonalds being at Ground Zero. At some point something will have to be put on the real estate because development generates tax revenue which in turn supports city services, and creates jobs. A small project like a McDonalds wouldn't be enough. It will have to be something big to generate the revenue to pay the ad valorem taxes, which considering its location are probably substantial, even if it remains undeveloped. I wonder if the mosque is being put in the development mix to reduce the ad valorem taxes.

Did this property just come on the market? Who else, if anyone, has tried to buy it? I just can't believe a piece of prime real estate in a city like New York would be on the market for very long.

 

[Dirk Funk]

How can you say Libertarians, Objectivists, and Anarcho-Capitalists are far right?

Is that a typo?

Libertarians are for the legalization of marijuana, for starters. They speak out against national IDs. Libertarians want to move to a more isolationist state, where the US isn't the FUCK YEAH world police.

Objectivists are all about personal freedom and abolishment of ANY religious involvement in the government. In fact, they believe in a lassies fare form of government. Not to be confused with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-Capitalists are wacked-out educational idealists with their noses buried deep within Aristotle and Leonard Peikoff's asses.

All three of those are VERY centrist.

To be clearer allow me to explain the new political paradigm.

The Right wing wants less economical government, but lots of limits on personal freedoms, because the Bible, Qur'an, or the Old Testament tell them so. Beware: Religious Zealotry and Fascism abound.

The Left want less laws against personal freedoms, but stricter economical ones, because Marx, Mao, and Kant said so. Beware: Communist Fascism exists here.

Centrists want more personal AND economical freedoms and don't think there should be sanctions against either until people die, because Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan say so. Beware: Big companies charge what they want.

Anarchists/Nihilists want no form of government whatsoever and think that we should live life how we want, regardless of how it affects others, because nothing means anything and Kierkegaard and Nietzsche said so. Beware: nothing, because it doesn't matter anyway.

There are your four quadrants of the political spectrum. Not just the two sides of a very outdated political scale.

Sorry, I meant to get back to this. Not sure if the last line was an edit or if I just didn't remember it, but that's exactly what I was getting at. Left and Right are chiefly economic terms. The political compass website opened my eyes to this some years back. There are indeed four quadrants. Right Authoritarian, Right Libertarian, Left Authoritarian, Left Libertarian. Most of my views are close to the Libertarian Party platform. With some variations of course, since we're a party of free thinkers. This is where I ended up on the scale:

So, no it wasn't a typo. Since Left and Right are economic terms, not social terms, the far right in this country is made up of Libertarians, Objectivists, Anarcho-Capitalists, etc.