Ron Paul on CNN: Goal Of Protesting WTC Mosque is to Blame Islam For 9/11

CNN is SO STUPID!



The message that Ron Paul is trying to give is SO important!!!
But look at what CNN says in the headline at the bottom
Ron Paul breaks away from GOP and son Rand.

What happened after this?

Ron Paul vs Rand Paul on "Ground Zero Mosque" - Father Schools Son
news.gather.com...

Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on the mosque
www.salon.com...

Search: Paul vs. Paul on mosque
specials.msn.com... 0

Ron Paul: Rand's his own man on the 'mosque' issue
voices.washingtonpost.com...

Ron Paul Backs "Ground Zero Mosque," Splitting with Son Rand
www.cbsnews.com...

Ron Paul slams opponents of the Ground Zero mosque, including his own son Rand Paul
www.examiner.com...

And it's only 10:15am!!!!!
The day just just started!!!!

Is that the biggest part of what the msm got from that Interview???
Unbelievable!!

Nobody even cares about the real issue of the mosque, they are only using it for partisan stupidity.

What a dumb stupid world we live in... what a soap opera of a political world.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Hopefully he's more adamant about other neo-conservative things as well, and breaks even further. It's sad to see his son say the stuff he has said in the last year. I was hoping for more. Such is life.

Perhaps Ron can break off enough, with enough credibility, to run on a viable third party ticket!

Unfortunately, just further proof of why he isnt going to get elected as prez imho. He is just to damn smart and the majority of the people in the world, like the imam said, go on emotions instead of logic. Mr. Paul delivered a perfectly logical arguement very well and isntead of debating him the newscaster wanted to ask him about a trivial, non-issue statement about Rand Paul. He might as well of asked him what he thinks about Lindsey Lohans stance on the the subject. Its rediculous. The media is going to black ball him again and try and make him out to look like a fool when he is far from it because he wont debate on the non issues that get thrown in there. I just hope other people wake up to this fact.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


i cant stand paul

whats more i cant stand the jekyl and hyde faces of the imam.

more to the point of his lies about the us being responsible for the deaths of 500,000 iraqi children through us sanctions.

those sanctions didnt have any effect on saddam and his oil for food rip offs or his multi billion dollar bank accounts or his posh multi million mansions....

the man of allah the imam is NO man of god when he just blames america.



emotional driven like the suicide bombers and the 19 hijackers being emotional driven through religious ferver to get their 70 virgins versus
the emotional driven american who lost their mother or father and friends that day who are still grieving.

the imam is no man of god by no means.
(sorry thats for another thread all together)

as to paul not even commenting on those statements made by the imam and take it to a straight the west hates islam is disengenious at best.


paul will never get my vote hes the classic exmaple of the cancer in washington- politicians.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by neo96]

When i watched this last night i was swearing at the T.V. I couldn't believe how Sanjay Gupta was twisting and manipulating Ron's words. It is truely disgusting that the only thing our MSM does is twist the truth.

Ron Paul is not for the Mosque, he said he doesn't care what they do, what he is for is the private property rights that allow the person who owns that land to build a mosque or what he likes.

He said many times in that interview he does not care what is built there, but; that he is for private property rights, so i find it truely disgusting that the media claims he is for the mosque knowing full well that Republicans are going to read that and take their anger out on Ron.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by epsilon69]

reply to post by neo96


In America there is freedom of speech and private property rights for everyone. Even an imam who says controversial things. As long as he does not threaten anyone and does not plan to use the mosque to harm someone else or someone elses property, then im sorry to say that he can build that mosque there and there is nothing we can do about it unless we are planning on violating his rights.

reply to post by epsilon69


is that so guess you never heard of eminent domain before


property rights blah

reply to post by neo96


I have heard of eminent domain and i think the government abuses it but what does that have to do with this situation.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

i cant stand paul

whats more i cant stand the jekyl and hyde faces of the imam.

more to the point of his lies about the us being responsible for the deaths of 500,000 iraqi children through us sanctions.

those sanctions didnt have any effect on saddam and his oil for food rip offs or his multi billion dollar bank accounts or his posh multi million mansions....

the man of allah the imam is NO man of god when he just blames america.



emotional driven like the suicide bombers and the 19 hijackers being emotional driven through religious ferver to get their 70 virgins versus
the emotional driven american who lost their mother or father and friends that day who are still grieving.

the imam is no man of god by no means.
(sorry thats for another thread all together)

as to paul not even commenting on those statements made by the imam and take it to a straight the west hates islam is disengenious at best.


paul will never get my vote hes the classic exmaple of the cancer in washington- politicians.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by neo96]

Lies about dead children? REALLY?!!!

Let's throw out some numbers here.

Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000

Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 571

Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 306, including 57 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 89 status unknown.

Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000

Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million

Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect

Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%

Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%

Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000

Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000

Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000

*****************

I could go on but really, what does it matter?
The only cancer I see is the voting public who get bogged down in the Pentagon Propaganda of deflection of real issues.
And I believe the main reason why you won't comment on Dr. Paul's comments is because you don't have anything to back up your refutations on the matter at hand.

Definition of Eminent Domain

Here is the definition of Eminent Domain in the US. Maybe you should re-read it.

Here's the text in case you don't want to go the link.

United States
The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, being an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes. The legislature may delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land. Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government's right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.[6]
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of public use, although the reason why the constitutional term "public use" should not be subject to judicial interpretation, the same as other constitutional terms, has not been explained. In 1832 the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to allow a mill owner to expand his dam and operations by flooding an upstream neighbor. The court opinion stated that a public use does not have to mean public occupation of the land; it can mean a public benefit.[7] In Clark vs. Nash (1905), the Supreme Court acknowledged that different parts of the country have unique circumstances and the definition of public use thus varied with the facts of the case. It ruled a farmer could expand his irrigation ditch across another farmer's land (with compensation), because that farmer was entitled to "the flow of the waters of the said Fort Canyon Creek... and the uses of the said waters... [is] a public use." Here in recognizing the arid climate and geography of Utah, the Court indicated the farmer not adjacent to the river had as much right as the farmer who was, to access the waters.[8] However, until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the limitations on eminent domain specified in the Fifth Amendment applied only to the federal government and not to the states. That view ended in 1896 when in the Chicago B. & Q. Railroad v. Chicago case the court held that the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment were incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus were now binding on the states. This was in-tune with the beginning of what is known as the "selective incorporation" doctrine.
An expansive interpretation of eminent domain was reaffirmed in Berman v. Parker (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed an effort by the District of Columbia to take and raze blighted structures, in order to eliminate slums in the Southwest Washington area. After the taking, held the court, the taken and razed land could be transferred to private redevelopers who would construct condominiums, private office buildings and a shopping center. The Supreme Court ruled against the owners of a non-blighted property within the area on the grounds that the project should be judged on its plans as a whole, not on a parcel by parcel basis. In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Supreme Court approved the use of eminent domain to transfer a land lessor's title to its tenants who owned and occupied homes built on the leased land. The court's justification was to break up a housing oligopoly, and thereby lower or stabilize home prices, although in reality, following the Midkiff decision, home prices on Oahu escalated dramatically, more than doubling within a few years.
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. As a reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering enacting state legislation that would further define and restrict the state's power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock (2004)), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney (2006)), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.
The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of the early 2010 (over four years after the court's decision) nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $80 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, who would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its New London research facility. 2009.[9]
American libertarians argue that eminent domain is unnecessary. Bruce L. Benson notes that utilities, for instance, have a variety of methods at their disposal, such as option contracts and dummy buyers, to obtain the contiguous parcels of land needed to build pipelines, roads, and so forth. These methods are routinely used to acquire land needed for shopping malls and other large developments.[10] Defending the Undefendable argues that the problem of recalcitrant landowners (i.e. "the curmudgeons") who refuse reasonable offers for the sale of their land is solved in the long term by the fact that their failure to accumulate wealth through such trades will give them a relative disadvantage in attempting to accumulate more land. Thus, the vast majority of land will tend to ultimately end up in the control of those who are willing to make profitable exchanges.[11]
[edit]Tax Implications
In the event of a taxpayers private property [12] being destroyed, stolen, condemned, or disposed of, they receive a payment in property or money in the form of insurance or a condemnation award.[13] If property is compulsorily or involuntarily converted (eminent domain) only into property similar or related in service or use to the property so converted, no capital gain shall be recognized.[14]
[edit]Bush executive order
On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[15] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.
[edit]Examples
Controversy on the Delaware: A Look Upstream at the Tocks Island Dam Project
United States v. Carmack
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company 160 U.S. 668 (1896)
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
Norwood, Ohio v. Horney
Kelo v. City of New London

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
CNN is SO STUPID!

The message that Ron Paul is trying to give is SO important!!!
But look at what CNN says in the headline at the bottom
Ron Paul breaks away from GOP and son Rand.

Not really, that actually is more interesting.

What happened after this?

Now I'm more interested in RP since he supports the "mosque", that's good. I hope in 2012 he won't choose Rand as VP. That would be interesting, his VP choice.

Nobody even cares about the real issue of the mosque, they are only using it for partisan stupidity.

What a dumb stupid world we live in... what a soap opera of a political world.

The world is a lot bigger and more complex than ordinary americans think, there are a lot of things behind the scenes that's going on. I don't think people who haven't expose themselves to other culture and idealogical mindset, could wrap their mind around it.