Props to Ron Paul

[BDKJMU]

BDK, what do you think of Paul's argument concerning property rights?

I've already said Paul's right in that they have a "legal" right to build it (that is IF the 100 million comes from legit sources), but that doesn't make it right. Paul didn't need a whole page to say that. Could have said that in one sentence.

[Skjellyfetti]

One of the major funders is one of the founders of News Corp and Fox News and their second largest shareholder.





Maybe he's trying to recruit muslims to join the Tea Parties?!? HOLY FUCK.

[ASUMountaineer]

I'm sorry, does the government have a right to ask who is funding your purchases or construction? If so, you'd gladly give it over because you have nothing to hide? Do you truly not see a slippery slope in letting Congress investigate the purchasing and construction finances of property in a sovereign state? Really? Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I should have to give over everything. Sure, if the money is coming from illegal sources--fine. But, do they have any evidence supporting that the money could be coming from illegal sources other than Rauf refuses to say where the money is going?

Uh, yeah if I had a $100 million come out of nowhere, much of it from foreign sources, and I refused to say where it cam from, yeah, I'd expect to be investigated...

The only reason they're considering investigating is because they're Muslim. There's absolutely no other reason. Unless you'd like to share what probable cause the FEDERAL government (and Congress) has to investigate. Congress will be busy investigating real estate construction in NYC then as $100 million is not that shocking in NYC--I mean, assuming it's in the NATION'S interest to know where the funding for real estate ventures comes from. I'm assuming you're not going to limit this just to Arab or Islamic construction.

[BDKJMU]

Uh, yeah if I had a $100 million come out of nowhere, much of it from foreign sources, and I refused to say where it cam from, yeah, I'd expect to be investigated...

The only reason they're considering investigating is because they're Muslim. There's absolutely no other reason. Unless you'd like to share what probable cause the FEDERAL government (and Congress) has to investigate. Congress will be busy investigating real estate construction in NYC then as $100 million is not that shocking in NYC--I mean, assuming it's in the NATION'S interest to know where the funding for real estate ventures comes from. I'm assuming you're not going to limit this just to Arab or Islamic construction.

Bunch of news reports out there that there has been very little of the funds raised so far. Currently there is no investigation. Only investigating there has been is by some conservative investigative journalists & bloggers pointing out some of Rauf's questionable ties. But if you or I or anyone else who wasn't a 8-9 figure multi millionaire all of a sudden came up with 100 million and wouldn't divulge there the $ came from, you can bet your a** the IRS would look into it, and if came from foreign sources, maybe Treasury & Customs too. Has nothing to do with being Muslim, so spare me..

And it is in the nations best interest to know where the funds come for large construction projects, esp if they come from overseas. Be they from organized crime, the Chi-Coms, Middle East, terrorist organizations or groups that fund $ to them, etc.

[Skjellyfetti]

I donated $5 to him.

[native]

BDK, what do you think of Paul's argument concerning property rights?

Why the hell is is that the only time you lefties give a sh!t about property rights is when it supports illegal or subversive activites?

[Skjellyfetti]

BDK, what do you think of Paul's argument concerning property rights?

Why the hell is is that the only time you lefties give a sh!t about property rights is when it supports illegal or subversive activites?

this isn't illegal or subversive, nativist. stop being dramatic.

[native]

Why the hell is is that the only time you lefties give a sh!t about property rights is when it supports illegal or subversive activites?

this isn't illegal or subversive, nativist. stop being dramatic.

The "illegal" part was a general comment about your fake concern for property rights. Any support whatsoever for sharia law is subversive.

[kalm]

this isn't illegal or subversive, nativist. stop being dramatic.

The "illegal" part was a general comment about your fake concern for property rights. Any support whatsoever for sharia law is subversive.

Who's giving support for sharia law?

[ASUMountaineer]

The only reason they're considering investigating is because they're Muslim. There's absolutely no other reason. Unless you'd like to share what probable cause the FEDERAL government (and Congress) has to investigate. Congress will be busy investigating real estate construction in NYC then as $100 million is not that shocking in NYC--I mean, assuming it's in the NATION'S interest to know where the funding for real estate ventures comes from. I'm assuming you're not going to limit this just to Arab or Islamic construction.

Bunch of news reports out there that there has been very little of the funds raised so far. Currently there is no investigation. Only investigating there has been is by some conservative investigative journalists & bloggers pointing out some of Rauf's questionable ties. But if you or I or anyone else who wasn't a 8-9 figure multi millionaire all of a sudden came up with 100 million and wouldn't divulge there the $ came from, you can bet your a** the IRS would look into it, and if came from foreign sources, maybe Treasury & Customs too. Has nothing to do with being Muslim, so spare me..

And it is in the nations best interest to know where the funds come for large construction projects, esp if they come from overseas. Be they from organized crime, the Chi-Coms, Middle East, terrorist organizations or groups that fund $ to them, etc.

IRS does not equal Congress. Plus, it's not in the "nation's best interest" to know. It doesn't affect me in Charlotte. I'll stick with basing my judgment on law and the Constitution--not my feelings. And, of course it has to do with it being Muslim. Surely, you're not that naive. If this was a Jewish temple being financed from Israel, no one would care. If you're right and this guy is using this construction to help establish anti-American forces here to, presumably to help fund terrorism, don't you think the Feds would be investigating everything they do? I don't get your opposition to this. I'm not in favor of the government violating property rights, even if its in relation to Muslims.

I'm still waiting on your answer for why the US was attacked on 9/11. You stated that it was not because of our troops in the Middle East or our involvement in their governments there. Please, tell us your views.

[uofmman1122]

I'm still waiting on your answer for why the US was attacked on 9/11. You stated that it was not because of our troops in the Middle East or our involvement in their governments there. Please, tell us your views.

It's 'cuz wur so FREE!!!!

[BDKJMU]

Bunch of news reports out there that there has been very little of the funds raised so far. Currently there is no investigation. Only investigating there has been is by some conservative investigative journalists & bloggers pointing out some of Rauf's questionable ties. But if you or I or anyone else who wasn't a 8-9 figure multi millionaire all of a sudden came up with 100 million and wouldn't divulge there the $ came from, you can bet your a** the IRS would look into it, and if came from foreign sources, maybe Treasury & Customs too. Has nothing to do with being Muslim, so spare me..

And it is in the nations best interest to know where the funds come for large construction projects, esp if they come from overseas. Be they from organized crime, the Chi-Coms, Middle East, terrorist organizations or groups that fund $ to them, etc.

IRS does not equal Congress. Plus, it's not in the "nation's best interest" to know. It doesn't affect me in Charlotte. I'll stick with basing my judgment on law and the Constitution--not my feelings. And, of course it has to do with it being Muslim. Surely, you're not that naive. If this was a Jewish temple being financed from Israel, no one would care. If you're right and this guy is using this construction to help establish anti-American forces here to, presumably to help fund terrorism, don't you think the Feds would be investigating everything they do? I don't get your opposition to this. I'm not in favor of the government violating property rights, even if its in relation to Muslims.

I'm still waiting on your answer for why the US was attacked on 9/11. You stated that it was not because of our troops in the Middle East or our involvement in their governments there. Please, tell us your views.

I was't refering to Congress investigating. I was refering to the Feds. Congress would only hold hearings IF he comes up with the 100 million and IF he tries to hide where it came from and IF the Feds uncovered anything nefarious.

If a Jewish rabbi came up with 100 million for some construction project and refused to say where it came from yes the Feds would investigate.

I did say why the US was attacked on 9/11 in my 2nd post on this thread.

[Skjellyfetti]

I did say why the US was attacked on 9/11 in my 2nd post on this thread.

No, you didn't.

[dbackjon]

The "illegal" part was a general comment about your fake concern for property rights. Any support whatsoever for sharia law is subversive.

Who's giving support for sharia law?

Probably the same people that allowed "Catholic Law" to override civil law in many jurisdictions when it came to church affairs and parishioners.

[BDKJMU]

I did say why the US was attacked on 9/11 in my 2nd post on this thread.

No, you didn't.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, you didn't.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

This is your 2nd post, BDK.... in its entirety. You DO NOT say WHY we were attacked on 9/11 AT ALL.

You just say that the reasons given by the jihadists is a red herring.

Not argueing Iraq. As far as Afghanistan you seem like we shouldn't have gone there either to go after the Taliban & Al Qaeda. I don't think post 9/11 we had much choice but to go into Afghanistan.


The jihadists have given as one of their justifications the 1st Gulf war and our small military presence in Saudi in 93', but that is a red herring. The Saudi govt invited the US in late 90' as they were scared sh*tless Sadaam was about to overrun them like he did Kuwait (which he certainly would have) and he was still certainly capable of in 93'. Obama inviting Chinese troops That analogy makes no sense. What country with a military many times the size of the US could overrun us like Sadaam could have Saudi?



The mosque already there is a lot further than the 13 story Cordoba House, and not nearly as big. Heck the Cordoba House building had a large chunk or airplane gear come crashing through the roof. Regardless, you and Paul are right there is no legal basis to stop them. And Paul could have left it at that instead of drumming up his neo con conspiracy and US foreign policy is to blame theories.


When Paul keeps on alleging conspiracies, 1st a govt coverup after 9/11, and now this neo con mosque opposition to maintain war in the Middle East, then yeah, he deserves a tin foil hat.

I forgot to mention in my 1st post Paul's saying:
"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."

Paul has it wrong. Pelosi was calling for an investigation of who was funding the mosque OPPOSITION. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with investigating who is funding the 100 million mosque, as Rauf has refused to say where the $ is coming from. If any of that $ can be tied to terrorist groups, state sponsors of terrorism, or any organization that also funds terrorist groups, that would be illegal.

Stop dodging the question:

I'm still waiting on your answer for why the US was attacked on 9/11. You stated that it was not because of our troops in the Middle East or our involvement in their governments there. Please, tell us your views.

[ASUMountaineer]

IRS does not equal Congress. Plus, it's not in the "nation's best interest" to know. It doesn't affect me in Charlotte. I'll stick with basing my judgment on law and the Constitution--not my feelings. And, of course it has to do with it being Muslim. Surely, you're not that naive. If this was a Jewish temple being financed from Israel, no one would care. If you're right and this guy is using this construction to help establish anti-American forces here to, presumably to help fund terrorism, don't you think the Feds would be investigating everything they do? I don't get your opposition to this. I'm not in favor of the government violating property rights, even if its in relation to Muslims.

I'm still waiting on your answer for why the US was attacked on 9/11. You stated that it was not because of our troops in the Middle East or our involvement in their governments there. Please, tell us your views.

I was't refering to Congress investigating. I was refering to the Feds. Congress would only hold hearings IF he comes up with the 100 million and IF he tries to hide where it came from and IF the Feds uncovered anything nefarious.

If a Jewish rabbi came up with 100 million for some construction project and refused to say where it came from yes the Feds would investigate.

I did say why the US was attacked on 9/11 in my 2nd post on this thread.

RP mentioned Congress investigating, and you posted that as well about Pelosi's possible investigation. As to the hypothetical Jewish Rabbi, they would only investigate if it was politically motivated...as it is in this case.

I forgot to mention in my 1st post Paul's saying:
"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."

Paul has it wrong. Pelosi was calling for an investigation of who was funding the mosque OPPOSITION. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with investigating who is funding the 100 million mosque, as Rauf has refused to say where the $ is coming from. If any of that $ can be tied to terrorist groups, state sponsors of terrorism, or any organization that also funds terrorist groups, that would be illegal.

[BDKJMU]

Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

This is your 2nd post, BDK.... in its entirety. You DO NOT say WHY we were attacked on 9/11 AT ALL.

You just say that the reasons given by the jihadists is a red herring.

Not argueing Iraq. As far as Afghanistan you seem like we shouldn't have gone there either to go after the Taliban & Al Qaeda. I don't think post 9/11 we had much choice but to go into Afghanistan.


Obama inviting Chinese troops That analogy makes no sense. What country with a military many times the size of the US could overrun us like Sadaam could have Saudi?



The mosque already there is a lot further than the 13 story Cordoba House, and not nearly as big. Heck the Cordoba House building had a large chunk or airplane gear come crashing through the roof. Regardless, you and Paul are right there is no legal basis to stop them. And Paul could have left it at that instead of drumming up his neo con conspiracy and US foreign policy is to blame theories.


When Paul keeps on alleging conspiracies, 1st a govt coverup after 9/11, and now this neo con mosque opposition to maintain war in the Middle East, then yeah, he deserves a tin foil hat.

I forgot to mention in my 1st post Paul's saying:
"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."

Paul has it wrong. Pelosi was calling for an investigation of who was funding the mosque OPPOSITION. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with investigating who is funding the 100 million mosque, as Rauf has refused to say where the $ is coming from. If any of that $ can be tied to terrorist groups, state sponsors of terrorism, or any organization that also funds terrorist groups, that would be illegal.

Stop dodging the question:

I'm still waiting on your answer for why the US was attacked on 9/11. You stated that it was not because of our troops in the Middle East or our involvement in their governments there. Please, tell us your views.

Reading is fundamental.

The jihadists have given as one of their justifications the 1st Gulf war and our small military presence in Saudi in 93', but that is a red herring. The Saudi govt invited the US in late 90' as they were scared sh*tless Sadaam was about to overrun them like he did Kuwait (which he certainly would have) and he was still certainly capable of in 93'.

[ASUMountaineer]

This is your 2nd post, BDK.... in its entirety. You DO NOT say WHY we were attacked on 9/11 AT ALL.

You just say that the reasons given by the jihadists is a red herring.




Stop dodging the question:

Reading is fundamental.

The jihadists have given as one of their justifications the 1st Gulf war and our small military presence in Saudi in 93', but that is a red herring. Not here. The Saudi govt invited the US in late 90' as they were scared sh*tless Sadaam was about to overrun them like he did Kuwait (which he certainly would have) and he was still certainly capable of in 93'. Nor here.

And just where in that statement do you say the "real" reason for the 9/11 attacks? My questions have been based on your statement that the military presence is a "red herring." (Even though you're mentioning '93) That implies that you believe that is not the real reason.

[BDKJMU]

Reading is fundamental.

And just where in that statement do you say the "real" reason for the 9/11 attacks? My questions have been based on your statement that the military presence is a "red herring." That implies that you believe that is not the real reason.

The jihadists have given as one of their justifications the 1st Gulf war and our small military presence in Saudi in 93', but that is a red herring. Not here.

It is right there! Red herring means a deliberate attempt to divert attention. The jihadists just used that as an excuse to attack us. A red herring to try to divert attention from the fact that the Islamic jihadists are a bunch of irrational nuts that have a hatred of the US and Jewish west and they think its perfectly ok to commit suicide terrorist attacks, that they're going to have an afterlife in paradise with 72 virgins, yada, yada, yada.

[Skjellyfetti]

It is right there! Red herring means a deliberate attempt to divert attention. The jihadists just used that as an excuse to attack us. A red herring to try to divert attention from the fact that the Islamic jihadists are a bunch of irrational nuts that have a hatred of the US and Jewish west and they think its perfectly ok to commit suicide terrorist attacks, that they're going to have a afterlife with 72 virgins, yada, yada, yada.

You still haven't given an answer for why you believe they attacked us on 9/11. Because they hate us? Ok, but why do they hate us? Because of our freedom? Because of our middle eastern policy over the last 50 years? Or something else?

[BDKJMU]

It is right there! Red herring means a deliberate attempt to divert attention. The jihadists just used that as an excuse to attack us. A red herring to try to divert attention from the fact that the Islamic jihadists are a bunch of irrational nuts that have a hatred of the US and Jewish west and they think its perfectly ok to commit suicide terrorist attacks, that they're going to have a afterlife with 72 virgins, yada, yada, yada.

You still haven't given an answer for why you believe they attacked us on 9/11. Because they hate us? Ok, but why do they hate us? Because of our freedom? Because of our middle eastern policy over the last 50 years? Or something else?

You're asking me to RATIONALIZE the actions of IRRATIONAL people.

[uofmman1122]

You're asking me to RATIONALIZE the actions of IRRATIONAL people.

Wow, you're a pro. You should run for public office.

[BDKJMU]

You're asking me to RATIONALIZE the actions of IRRATIONAL people.

Wow, you're a pro. You should run for public office.

So you don't agree that the 19 hijackers were irrational people?

[Skjellyfetti]

Wow, you're a pro. You should run for public office.

So you don't agree that the 19 hijackers were irrational people?

That's not the point. Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, etc. were irrational people. Is it "rationalizing their actions" to try to determine their motivations? No... It's a a necessary step to prevent future domestic terrorists. Same with foreign terrorists. Though, you seem to still be in the neocon "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM" mindset.

BDKJMU: the last neocon remaining on CS.com.