Pat gets mad

[Autumnlicious]

I can't explain it, but I realise it is unfair. People should be able to wear whatever clothing they like, regardless of their religion.

That is, until of course, it interferes with establishing identification and other security related procedures.

[Minimalist]

Here is Condell's mosque video.

At times, he is a little over the top. In other places - he is spot on.






He's right about islam's hair-trigger reaction to any affront. How many thousands would die if xtians wanted to build a church in Mecca?

[Napoléon]

While I personally don't agree with banning a mosque/community centre near ground zero, I fully understand why people wouldn't want one there. Let's face facts. The people who killed thousands were self proclaimed muslims. Now I wouldn't say it was at all irrational, to say no to building a mosque at the site of all of those deaths which were supposedly 'in the name of Islam'.
I think it is absolutely insensitive.

Firstly, the idea that the mosque is "at the site of all those deaths" is absurd, and reveal how much you actually know about the community centre. The people who destroyed the towers we muslims, but were of a completely different sect of Islam than anyone building the mosque. It's why we don't blame all Christians when abortion clinics are bombed, or when they build icons of stupidity like creation museums. We don't stop them from building churches, when so much destruction has come out of their religion, but for some reason we do it when it's Islam. The only reason is pure hatred, and that is exactly why the politicians of New York are letting the mosque be built; because at the end of the day, people are associating the mosque with the attack in a way which is unfair on those building the mosque.

I happen to agree with you Tiberius (as I said in the original comment), but I completely understand the other spectrum of the argument. Fact is people will see it as insensitive to build a mosque there, simple as that. I just don't see the point of why they keep pushing the 'community centre' or whatever it is. There are plenty of other places they could build one, and surely they themselves can understand why there would be issues building one where they want to build it. That's not to say I think they shouldn't be able to build there just like anyone else, but I think the decent thing to do would be to just build it somewhere the fuck else and save all the aggro it's gonna cause.

[Tiberius]

Where would be an acceptable distance then? If not 2 blocks away, is 3 enough? Or are muslims not allowed to worship in New York city ever again because of the actions of people completely out of their control? You can guarantee that there are enough idiots in new York city to oppose / make a fuss of any location within the city borders.

[Napoléon]

Where would be an acceptable distance then? If not 2 blocks away, is 3 enough? Or are muslims not allowed to worship in New York city ever again because of the actions of people completely out of their control? You can guarantee that there are enough idiots in new York city to oppose / make a fuss of any location within the city borders.

I guess an acceptable place would be back in the middle east where that shitty religion came from. Can't all get what we want though I suppose.

[Minimalist]

Where would be an acceptable distance then? If not 2 blocks away, is 3 enough?

Point taken, Adrian.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...imination/

(CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that communities should be able to prevent the construction of mosques in their neighborhoods.

Cain said he sided with some residents of a Tennessee town who tried to prevent Muslims from worshiping nearby.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, outside Nashville, has been the subject of protests and counter protests earlier. A judge ruled in May that its planned construction did not harm the residents who sued to prevent it, but also allowed claims that the county violated an open meetings law in approving it to move forward. Construction of the new center has yet to start as the case continues.

"Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said on "Fox News Sunday." "They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in that community and the people in the community do not like it, they disagree with it."

Apparently Tennessee - roughly 1200 miles - is too close.

Of course, Cain is one of your republicolibertarianazi icons so I guess you find that a tad embarrassing!

But politics makes strange bedfellows, eh?

[Judas BentHer]

Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe in Religious Dialogue’

I think an argument against the construction of the Mosque two blocks from ground zero, for it to be deemed a rational one by a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer, would depend on the rational of that individual alone.
Discounting any cause for respect to the victims of 9-11 and their families not having to pass by a Mosque constructed to honor a religion that extremists within that political ideology took to inspire hijacking American commercial airliners and flying thousands of people to their horrific death, isn't rational in the first place.

It isn't rational for those who pander to PC and advocate the Mosque's construction to scream in it's defense; "IT'S NOT A MOSQUE! IT'S A MUSLIM COMMUNITY CENTER!"

When the truth of the matter is all Mosques are Muslim Community Centers. So then not only is the issue ignorance, it's semantics. The later of which panderers to PC, Muslims and Muslim sympathizers hope is not noticed when the denial of Cordoba Initiative is mounted against those who refer to it as a Mosque. When that is exactly what it is going to be. As it is now, in the remnants of a former retail building without all the religious architecture applied to indicate quite forthrightly that it is an Islamic Mosque even now.
And when the project is complete on Cordoba Initiative, it shall be the largest Mosque in America.

It isn't rational that the primary supporter for construction of the ground zero Mosque (Park51 Community Center aka/The Cordoba Initiative) proposed two blocks from the site of the greatest terrorist attack in the history of America, Imam Abdul Rauf, has a tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Appearing as a pluralistic moderate Muslim when addressing American media and speaking in lecture to the FBI, while delivering a different rhetoric when speaking abroad. Especially in Muslim countries.

It's not rational to ignore the fact that of all people an alleged Imam would know the history of not only Mosque's construction during the Muslim wars of the past, but also the import of naming the facility proposed two blocks from Ground Zero, Cordoba.
Supporters of the Initiative tout the benefits of this new Mosque construction, claiming it will inspire an interfaith dialog among all people, and help to heal the hurt, the mistrust, the paranoia that is presently occupying many in the west, when it comes to lumping all Muslims behind the veil of that which was worn by the Muslim terrorists of September 11th, 2001.
Those supporters think back to the history of Cordoba Spain, a model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews, since references to Judaism and Christianity, and including Jesus being a prophet of Allah while not recognized as the son of Allah, make the trinity of the Abrahamic faiths appear to hold an interfaith relationship already. And in what many erroneously perceive as this, "Christian America", what better way to reestablish the interfaith trust and kinship between the Abrahamic branches than to build a Muslim community center that shall be opened to welcome all.

Indeed, that is one way of looking at it. However, as those who condemn Pat Condell and others, even Muslims and former Muslims (those dread Kafir and apostates, worthy of death by some interpretations), for daring to speak to the truth many in Islam portray about their faith and interpretation thereof, which is violent, intolerant and has nothing to do with fostering interfaith peace and societal accord, it isn't rational to imagine all that can be ignored or dismissed as "not Islam", or that there are so few of "those kind of Muslims" that it's not fair to address the matter as if it applies to encompass all Muslims.

When the truth is the other history of Cordoba Spain reads quite differently.

Firstly, it's important to reiterate that the very foundation of Islam is belief in god. As the term, "Islam" literally means "submission" to that fact. And the platform that is constructed from that foundation of faith begins and ends with the Koran.

Now let's recall Cordoba. From whence Ground Zero Mosque/Cordoba Initiative name was spawned. And when that progressive history present there long ago is cited as cause for the naming of a new Mosque construction in New York City USA, it's only fair to recall all of the history related to Cordoba and Muslim history there. So that if the name from that long ago past city is found worthy of being brought forth into the future, due to one aspect of that old record of Muslim, Christian and Jewish relations then the whole record is subject to scrutiny.

THE LIBRARY OF IBERIAN RESOURCES ONLINE
Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain
Kenneth Baxter Wolf
Chapter 1
Christians in Muslim Córdoba

(Excerpt) "...(Sic)Every such agreement reached between Muslim leaders and the peoples they subjected was based in principle on two passages from the Qur'ân: [7]


Fight those who believe not
In God nor the last Day
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By God and His Apostle
Nor acknowledge the Religion
Of Truth (even if they are)
Of the People of the Book,
Until they pay the Jizya
With willing submission,
And feel themselves subdued.

Those who believe (in the Qur'ân),
And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Christians and the Sabians, --
Any who believe in God
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With their Lord: on them
Shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.(6) (end excerpt)

And to the matters of Mosques, there's a history there too . As the platform of Islam, the Koran, clearly describes. (Remembering that Islam means, submission. And if submission is the edict, then it stands to reason electing to choose what one decides to follow and practice as a Muslim, is not in keeping with voluntary submission to god. A god in yet another monotheistic political ideology, that "wrote" the Koran. And as such, electing what of it one is going to obey, isn't an option if one is submitting to the will of the god that provided that guidebook as his instruction to those calling themselves Muslims, under his divine authority. As has been said repeatedly, Islam is Islam. )

Koran Sura 18:21 And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them, that they might know that Allah’s promise is true and that the Hour — there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them. Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed in their affair said: We shall certainly build a place of worship over them. (English translation (with original Arabic) Source) Many Imam's will say that to truly understand the Koran one must read it in it's original Arabic. The problem is many Muslims are not fluent in Arabic. Thus they depend on Imam's to interpret for them. While English speaking Muslims simply are said to miss the import of the English language translation. Take that as you will. Recalling that many of the 9-11 terrorists we're to believe struck America because they hated our politics and Imperialist nature, were from rich Saudi families, who are so due in large part to America and other countries. Hell of a way to show one hates capitalism that helped to make them filthy rich, no?

History of Islam and how they build VICTORY MOSQUES… *A note about the site* While the dialog in this thread relates to tolerance of Islam and conflict surrounding the issues Pat Condell addresses in his videos, I don't think we can claim to condemn Condell's work for his bias, or praise him for his forthrightness in speaking to the bare bone facts that Islam relates about itself, and thus make it subject to critique and review, and then discount a site link that begins it's presentation with an excerpt from the Christian Bible.
Read past that. The dates and the information related can all be researched independently so as to ascertain the truth behind those. The site is offered here because it gives a detailed dated list related to the history of Muslim wars/conflict with the rest of the world, and the construction of Mosques, per the command in the Koran (above), so as to build a place of worship over them.
As stated, Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology. Conquering infidels and erecting religious community centers for Muslims atop the former places of worship of the conquered, or on the lands of the conquered/subjugated peoples is evidence of that. And that was done because god's word commanded it so.

So when a Mosque/Muslim Community Center/ Park51/Cordoba Initiative is constructed but two blocks from a site wherein "radical" terrorist Muslims slaughtered thousands of innocent people to send a message related to their political ideology, when a Mosque in NYC has stood 6 blocks from the World Trade Center since the 1960's and was not accosted in the aftermath of 9-11 as a reprisal for what happened at Liberty and Church streets, because contrary to the hate propaganda some in the media and elsewhere imply, after 9-11 people the world over and particularly in NYC were suspect of any and all that was Muslim or Islam, is testament to the fact that New York has always embraced interfaith dialog and tolerance for Muslims. That's why there are at least 140 Mosques in New York City. (Google Maps)

Now while there shall always be those who believe discrimination is a bad thing, it wasn't always so. In fact indiscrimination is crippling.
Discrimination, by definition, is not a bad thing contrary to the recent push for political correctness and what amounts to implied charges of thought crime when one dares imagine they can stand against the tide that says we must be tolerant of all things, and instead say quite forthrightly no we do not!

Because one doesn't tolerate that which is in accord with their values. Rather, they tolerate that which is otherwise intolerable, reprehensible, unacceptable and deemed by their personal values to be wrong.

Having said that there is no fault in discriminating against a Mosque being constructed two blocks from ground zero wherein that building, the former Burllington Coat Factory store, was also impacted by the debris of 9-11 and as it still stands, while having served as a prayer center for Muslims after 9-11, after being abandoned when it had formerly been a retail shop, is testament to the tenacity and where with all of emergency service personnel and New Yorkers, in that it was saved from the horror of that day though it was impacted by debris.

And while bones of victims long years after 9-11 were still being found on the roofs of buildings in the surrounding area, tolerance for the Muslim faith in New York preceded the horror of that day in September and continued after, which is why prayers still echo in that building at 51 Park Avenue, just blocks away where a crater now filled with signs of building back from the rubble certain Muslims wrought against a nation, her people and New York City, and continues to serve as a reminder that political ideologies make an impact long after the first strike.

All that long winded reply having been said, asking for a rational explanation for why Cordoba Initiative should not succeed, Ground Zero Mosque/Park51 should not be built in itself is immaterial to what is. It's not rational to ask for a good reason why we should then argue/debate about what is already a resolved issue.
Ground Zero Mosque is going to be built. The backers, including the Imam who has political ties in this country which may be inferred to have helped foster the approval contract, have jumped through all the right hoops and as the article at the start of this post outlines, it's a done deal.

While the Imam behind this project says in his blog that it's a great thing that America is opening to Islam and integration with the Muslim community, his platitudes and patronizing is transparent because the facts say that New Yorkers have been open to interfaith community as relates to Islam especially, 140 times!

The issue about Ground Zero Mosque isn't the Mosque itself and yet another Mosque is planned to be erected in NYC. The issue is proximity!

One more Mosque is going to be erected in New York City, two blocks away from the site where those psychopathic politically inspired radical Muslims felled an American ideology that affirms freedom of religion while never imagining we'd not be free from the religious who thought we deserved to have commercial airliners hijacked and flown into the two tallest buildings in New York City. And now, nearly 10 years later the ink is dry on plans to erect a Mosque two blocks from that burial ground, as so many bodies remain lost, that will stand as the largest Mosque in America. Projected to be upward of 13 stories high. Two blocks from where formerly there stood the two largest buildings in the world, the two largest structures on the eastern seaboard of the United States. Felled by terrorists and now within a short walk of that crater, grave site, the tallest Mosque in America is slated to begin construction.

The truth is, the backers of Ground Zero Mosque refused to relocate Park51, for the sake of quieting the conflict it's proximity inspired. The truth is, that address at Park Place is the closest the Imam and his backers could have hoped to get to Ground Zero. The truth is, if Islam was a religion of peace it would also include being a faith of compassion and recognize that if Muslims want to worship they have but to walk 6 blocks from Ground Zero and continue to do as they've done since the 1960's in a Mosque that isn't but 80 feet from a tomb born from the willful act of 19 Al-Qaeda Muslim terrorists, 4 commercial American airliners in the name of submission to the will of Allah and the Jihad against America.
Ground Zero Mosque, and the Imam knows this, isn't going to bring an eclectic American community in NYC together. It's going to cause strife, division and anger to continue over the erection of what amounts to a tombstone near shadowing Park and Church streets tragedy. Now the two largest buildings in the world are no more and in their stead the largest Mosque in America shall stand.

A rational reason why it shouldn't, at that proximity to Ground Zero? If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
The truth is, the Imam who's presently overseeing prayers in the former Burlington Coat Factory store where the Cordoba Initiative/Park51/Ground Zero Mosque is to be constructed, knows the history of Mosques being constructed atop conquered peoples religious shrines. Or in proximity so as to commit to the edict outlined in the Koran sura above.
And while Islam in no wise conquered America on 9-11, it did make an impact interjecting a fear paradigm for all things Islam. Because when Muslims act as terrorists, they represent what Islam means to them as they act as Muslim terrorists. And in so doing their example, and those around the world, including of late Muslim terrorist acts or attempts on the American base Ft. Hood, they lend the impression their faith inspires them to violence. And as a consequence all Muslims are suspect because what compels the terrorist Muslim is the edicts of the Koran that supports and defines their conduct as Muslims. Far right-wing extremist Muslims.

Just as terrorist Christians who murder abortion doctors, blow up abortion clinics, assault women who try to enter women's health centers, lobby for legislation that violates a womans reproductive rights, impart a stereotype that attached itself to Christians. Far right-wing extremist Christians.

And if it was all about interfaith community, as the Imam implies, then we'd see equal rights of worship for Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc... in Muslim countries. We'd, as mentioned before, see churches and synagogues being erected in Mecca and Saudi Arabia.
We don't. We won't. So why is it a horrible thing for American's to say we don't want the largest Mosque in America to be constructed but 80 feet from where the largest buildings in the world once stood? If Muslim's in Muslim countries have the right to forbid religious temples of worship being constructed in their lands because their faith isn't tolerant of that, why do Muslim people claim citizens of America have no right to protest construction of a Mosque on land but two blocks from where the worst example of Islam murdered over three thousand innocent people, because it was decided they couldn't be tolerated while alive?

But all this long winded post and the challenge for a rational objection to Ground Zero Mosque is, as relates to the construction issue, a non-issue now. While the root of the matter, will be an issue for America and the world for a very long time. Islam, like any monotheist cult, only in this case political ideology, thinks it is superior to all others. (Only one god. Islam = submission to the will of that god) The problem is, all other religions think the same thing. The concern is, Islam, like other religions that suffer zealots, a faith that tends to inspire in the name of imparting that message.


ABC News July 13,2011 - 'Ground Zero Mosque' Clears Legal Hurdle to Build

As to the challenge to present a rational explanation why we should ban certain articles of clothing, when anyone reading can tell it's actually a question as to why we should ban the niqāb or even Hijab in America, (or elsewhere that is not a Muslim country), the answer is obvious.

When I enter the bank here, and any bank in the State for that matter, there's a sign on the door that prohibits use of cell phones, because they've been used to take pictures of the security of one bank here and as a consequence that bank was robbed based on what was gleaned about the security of the place, from the video the cell phone provided. Also banned are sunglasses, hats, and in winter face coverings that protect from the cold when outside, but act as a disguise when indoors.
The niqāb is not a mandate in Islam. It's not an absolute law, it's an elective. As Muslim women have often said in the press, when women's rights activist groups point at them and say they're being oppressed having to cover themselves so they appear as a veritable walking black trash bag with eyes, they say instead that they choose to be covered because they feel more comfortable that way. Of course not all Muslim woman are in accord with that and of course not all Muslim women cover themselves. So in non-Muslim countries, and perhaps even some Muslim states, the niqāb is not compulsory. So, if Muslim women move to what is deemed a "free society" and they enjoy all that that entails, they shouldn't have a whole lot of objection to being free to show their face.

While freedom of religion is a Constitutional right in America, it is not a blanket pardon to do anything one likes as a religious person.
For instance, honor killing isn't pardonable as a right under freedom of religion. Running over one's daughter with a Jeep Grand Cherokee, so that she languishes in a hospital bed for two weeks before succumbing to her injuries, isn't an inalienable right under the 1st amendment. Beheading one's wife because she was raped and it was deemed her fault because she wasn't properly covered or was in some way responsible for her rapist's actions isn't something a Muslim murderer husband, now widower, is going to walk away from without legal penalty because he cited his right to exercise his freedom to commit an honor killing in the name of his faith to Islam.

And covering one's self so that they appear as a trash bag with eyes, of a body with no visible facial features but one or both eyes showing, making facial identification impossible, isn't pardonable under the 1st either.
If a person can't walk into a bank with a cap on their head, Ray ban's covering their eyes and a turtleneck pulled up and over their mouth so as to somehow hold off the bite of a cold winter wind, then a Muslim woman clad in a niqāb or hijab isn't entitled to special rights because she elects to wear, in this western country, what is not compulsory in her own religion and is not mandatory by law in this non-Muslim nation.

If something happens and witnesses are asked, who was driving the car that committed this alleged hit and run? What's to be said if it was a woman wearing a hijab or niqāb?
"Well officer, it was a blue car. It all happened so fast that I didn't see the license plate (or there wasn't one) but the driver was wearing a black hood."
"Can you identify the driver better than that, sir?"
"No!"

If a KKK Grand Dragon can't wear his dunce cap covering into a bank to cash a check, Muslim niqāb or hijab covered women are not entitled to a special religious exemption either. Nor can someone who claims nudity is part of their religion expect to be exempt from wearing clothing in public, so as to comport with secular laws against indecent exposure.

France forbids face coverings. So far the controversial law remains steadfast.
Florida law prohibits face covering, when one has their drivers license photo taken. (ARTICLE: Florida appeals court upholds ban of Muslim veil in driver’s license photo
Associated Press, via the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, USA Sep. 7, 2005 )

I watched the first trial with Sultaana Freeman wherein she claimed her right to free exercise of religion would be burdened by the photo requirement that she uncover her head,so that she can be identified as the lawful holder of the Florida drivers license. And in the event she was stopped by officers that she unveil so as to confirm her face in the photo on the current license is that of herself, the driver. She claimed, through her attorneys, that if she were permitted to remain veiled for the picture she would happily comply to unveil at a stop, if it were a male police officer making the stop, if a woman officer was called to the scene so that Sultaana Freeman could then unveil to another woman so that her identity be confirmed.
It was absurd! Asking for special treatment above the law's that already apply as a rule for applying for the privilege of a Florida driving license.

Which goes back to other objections made by many people, including Pat Condell, when it's said that there are many forms of conquest of an Infidel state. One is interjecting, by law, customs and traditions exclusive to the Muslim so that theirs then becomes a privileged class that expects entitlement above the laws of those citizens in those non-Muslim countries the Muslim either resides in as a natural born citizen. Or relocates to as a former citizen of a Muslim state.
Sultaana Freeman's suit demonstrated that very thing.
While applying for the privilege of a Florida driver license, she expected to be permitted to violate the rules that applied to the photo part of the process. Eyes, do not an identity make. Showing just her eyes in a photo where the rest of her face and head is obscured by a covering, isn't a proper form of identification. Anyone can be behind that veil. Features make the identity exclusive to the bearer. She went so far as to sue and then appeal the initial decision of the court, for a special law exempting Muslim women from the rules that applied to all who would apply for a Florida driver license. She lost. As justice would have it.

Just as in Minneapolis a few years ago. Minneapolis airport Muslim cab drivers sued to have the right to refuse to pick up certain fares, due to religious grounds. Specifically, Muslim cab drivers wanted the right to violate the American with Disabilities Act, and refuse to pick up a fare if a guide dog or aid dog was present. Because Islam condemns dogs. They wanted the right to refuse to pick up fares who were carrying alcohol, or appeared drunk. So much for the helpful cab ride assistance programs open in most States wherein if a bar customer is too drunk to drive, the local cab company will drive them home for free so as to keep the roads safe from a drunk driver. And finally, Minneapolis airport Muslim cab drivers wanted the right to refuse service to women they deemed were scantily clad.
They lost! As justice would have it.

America is a land that promises the inalienable right to freely practice one's religion.
America does not promise in the 1st amendment, that the religious are thus entitled to be exempt from the secular laws of the land that govern all people, simply because that religious individual claims they answer to a higher law dictated by an alleged supreme being that has never been proven to exist, that they believe speaks to them and that they choose to obey. Often over and above the laws and human rights that govern others entitlement to be free from extremists in religion.


Where's Waldo Jameela ?

---

You know, one of the most over used words that is a subtext to that old indictment regarding Godwin's Law in a post, is referring to those one disagrees with as a Nazi.

When most people flinging around that tired term, that insures Hitlers Reich does live a thousand years for all the references made to his political ideology long years after he's rotted, don't even know what it meant when it was a contemporary political ideology in Germany.

Hitler and his Reich Nazi's were racists first and foremost. The Aryan race being superior to all others who were to be vanquished under their heel. The first party the Nazi's sought to eliminate when the National Socialism party entered into power under Hitler, was Communists. The first residents of concentration camps. Because Marxism was despised by Hitler and was given as cause for the German Aryan people's present day oppression under the old guard. Thus, the new savior, National Socialism, was applauded and cheered and deemed the answer to all the German people's ills.

Later, the Jews, because of their wealth, their holdings in gold and land, and their race, were targeted. However the population that suffered the most, who's extermination numbers counted higher than the Jews, was the Roma. The Gypsies.
Gays were targeted as deviants. They were experimented on in the most sadistic research, while they were forced to wear the pink triangle so as to differentiate them from other prisoners. Christians were imprisoned, fellow Germans who weren't in accord with Hitler's vision. The list is huge and yet, to this day people who don't know anything about the Hitler vision or agenda call those they despise in politics and elsewhere; Nazi's.

More so than condemning Capitalism at every turn, while when asked for a superior alternative, there's no reply.
It's tragic. And yet it those are terms that really have no import, because they doesn't apply to describe anything but the one who spits it out as an insult. To themselves.

[Tiberius]

Of course, Cain is one of your republicolibertarianazi icons so I guess you find that a tad embarrassing!

For the last time, Min.

I'm a Libertarian. I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Nazi. I believe in freedom; freedom of the markets as well as freedom of the people. I wouldn't support any candidate if they said they would want it so that communities could decide whether or not mosques could be built in their neighbourhoods. I wouldn't support that kind of candidate even if they were the most Libertarian candidate around in all other respects (i.e. free market support, etc).

Libertarianism is a pretty easy political philosophy to understand. If a person believes that individual freedom goes hand in hand with economic freedom, then they are a Libertarian. If they think one freedom is greater than the other, then they aren't Libertarians. Usually, they are either Liberals or Republicans (Liberals prefer individual freedom, Republicans prefer economic freedom). I don't get along with either of those political outlooks; I feel they are both lacking in some way, hence why I am a Libertarian.

Please stop calling me a Nazi. It's hurtful, and I'd expect more from a man whose age makes him a prime candidate for being a grandfather. If my grandfather went around calling people who he disagreed with "Nazis" for no other reason, then I'd lose all respect for him. I've already lost most of the respect I once had for you. Your frequent jokes and puns are the only good thing you bring to this forum as far as I am concerned. The only way you are going to regain that respect is by refraining from comparing your political opponents to Nazis. Or does Godwin's law mean nothing to you?

...and in case you thought otherwise, my "Michelle Bachmann for President" avatar is a joke.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Rseasha,

A Libertarian you say? Oh dear,and I was really beginning to like and respect you. Oh well,perhaps you will recover.

I can understand Min referring to libertarians as Nazis, it's hard to tell the difference between Nazis and some of the more simple minded libertarians. (such as say Pat Condell) However, I would not refer to either you or Void as Nazis,.I think you are both too broad minded and complex of thought for that,unlike Mr Condell,with his popularist sloganising.

I don't always agree with Min either,but he's bright, articulate,erudite and witty. I think he contributes great deal to this forum. Returning insult for insult is adolescent,and often leads to a stupid flame war few here want.

In the meantime, OF COURSE I will continue to like and respect you AND Min.


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

TANGENT:

Using a Nazi analogy is not ALWAYS Godwin's Law (Reductio Ad Hitlerum) in action. I think Mike Godwin made the observation as a facile and witty comment, not meant to be taken too seriously, any more than the wry but dreary Murphy's Law.

[Minimalist]

I'm a Libertarian. I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Nazi.

You are also British, Adrian, and simply refuse to understand that OVER HERE there is no appreciable difference between the 3. I hope I don't have to explain this again because I also think you and Void are pretty cool.....


(When you aren't selling out to the upper 1%, that is.)