(0 comments)
Methinks this statement from Ron Paul on the Muslim community center foofaraw ain’t gonna make for pleasant dinnertime conversation with principle-free wingnut son Rand Paul:
Many fellow conservatives [like my dipshit son] 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. [...]
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. [...]
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Official Gingrich-Cain 2012 response to Rick Santorum’s homophobia: “Rick, Rick, Rick. Don’t you know that the anti-gay bigotry only carries water if you have a few failed straight marriages under your belt?” Follow all their other words of wisdom here. (0 comments)Ron Paul Quote of the Week: Honest Rape
Here’s Grandpa Fustypants on rape and abortion:“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.”
via (4 comments)Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
Ha, loved the dipshit son bit! I suspect Rand probably feels closer to Ron than Newt on this issue, but he apparently wants to win and increasingly will jettison almost any of his lifelong principles in order to accomplish that.
Sound principles held during a campaign that lead to bad electoral defeats are kind of worthless.. I think Goldwater taught us that.
I'm far more interested in what Rand will do once elected than I am in what he says in the run up to an election in fucking Kentucky.
On a general note, I tend to not be bothered by politicians taking populist positions during campaigns and later backtracking on them.
What does bother me are politicians who make sound promises during elections but don't deliver once elected—e.g. Bush promising no nation building in his 2000 campaign; Obama promising to close Guantanamo and other GWOT-related reforms on which he's been a failure.
Yes, Goldwater taught us that extremism in the defense of liberty is perhaps a bit of a vice since you won't get elected. Still, given how strongly Papa feels about this and I suspect, given Rand's generally unwavering support for property rights above nearly any consideration of what the public thinks is appropriate, that he secretly agrees with him and so I'm perplexed he didn't just take a pass on this issue. He could have easily done so, but he clearly saw an opportunity to poke a stick to get some votes. In any case, I'm glad we have Gherald on record as being in favor of candidate demagoguery as long as it's unprincipled demagoguery that the elected official rejects as soon as he/she is elected (somewhere in Arizona you just made John McCain smile). :) I agree there is a problem with candidates not fulfilling their "sound" promises but that, I guess, I would distinguish from them not believing in them and using them only to get some votes.
I never said I was in favor. As the linked article points out, Rand Paul's Democratic opponent has said much the same as Rand (basically, "we think the mosque would be better put somewhere more sensitive to 911 fetishists' feelings"). As political demagoguery goes, it's pretty run of the mill.
Perhaps I should have written I'm "less bothered" by unprincipled demagoguery, but I'm still virtually not bothered as there are too many more pressing things to be outraged about.
One does have to love the gitmo situation. Members of his own party
betrayed him on that, never forget. They passed a law blocking it.
We all need to remember that when President Obama moved to close Gitmo last year, both the democrats and republicans turned on him, and we need to remember that the Constitution mandates that nothing gets to the president's desk for signing unless it passes both House of Congress FIRST (sorry, but this is the retired social studies teacher part of me.)
Ron Paul emphasized in his CNN interview the foreign policy implications of the Park 51 protests, and I think he is right. Gingrich, Geller, Palin, and the others have declared war on Islam and haven't given one minute of thought to the impact of their words on the lives of our troops who are operating in nations where Islam is the main religion. The world is watching, and so are the terrorists who have already vowed to commit an act of terrorism against the FL church that plans to burn the Koran on 9/11. The leaders of these protesters are playing a very dangerous game. That Gingrich and King are now saying that they won't appear at Geller's 9/11 event may mean that someone in the Republican Party may have spoken to them about their violent rhetoric, or they somehow discovered that Geert Wilders is an obnoxious Islamophobe and is much farther to the right than they are. Or it could be that they've seen the poll that shows that over 70% of voters say that the Park 51 issue will not change how they plan to vote in November. Ron Paul was right to tell them to stop ginning up fear for political gain.
Well said. Thank you.