Since the left seems to be champions of private property rights in the building of the 'Near Ground Zero' Mosque and are claiming that opposing building it on the grounds that its inappropriate is somehow against the Constitution I am curious as to how many of these same people have used the exact same tactics as the right to prevent Walmart stores from coming into their neighborhoods?
Its seems fairly routine that the left has used public pressure to prevent Walmart stores from being built, especially in smaller urban areas. They use the argument that its destroys local businesses, they don't treat their employees well and provide them with healthcare, etc. Basically its a 'moral' argument that they should not be built. They use public pressure, threats of boycotts, and the press to their advantage to prevent these stores from being built.
In addition, in the case of cities like Chicago, they actually pass LAWS which try to prevent these stores from being built by forcing Walmart to provide things like insurance to its employees that don't apply to any of its competitors.
How can the left POSSIBLY claim they are champions of private property rights and those who oppose the mosque are acting against the Constitution when they themselves ROUTINELY use not only public pressure but legal tricks to prevent private businesses from being built?
Imagine if the city of New York passed a law that all Mosque's in Manhattan over the value of 50 million dollars must provide healthcare for all the volunteers and employees of the mosque in order to try to prevent it from being built. The left would be outraged, but its exactly what they have done to private business themselves.
The argument that the mosque is inappropriate is no different than saying its 'not fair' that Walmart puts its locally owned competitors out of business. Both arguments are perfectly VALID and LEGAL things to say, but essentially they are just OPINIONS. Why is it OK for the left to use emotional arguments such as putting mom and pop businesses out of business and providing healthcare to its employees when denying a Walmart the right to build on private property but when people speak out against a Mosque being build NEAR ground zero being inappropriate (An emotional argument) the people who do so are suddenly anti-American and acting against the Constitution?
The pro-property rights position and claims that the opponents of the 'Near Ground Zero' Mosque are anti-American and unconstitutional are simply politically motivated hackery by an increasingly desperate political party.
Its seems fairly routine that the left has used public pressure to prevent Walmart stores from being built, especially in smaller urban areas. They use the argument that its destroys local businesses, they don't treat their employees well and provide them with healthcare, etc. Basically its a 'moral' argument that they should not be built. They use public pressure, threats of boycotts, and the press to their advantage to prevent these stores from being built.
In addition, in the case of cities like Chicago, they actually pass LAWS which try to prevent these stores from being built by forcing Walmart to provide things like insurance to its employees that don't apply to any of its competitors.
How can the left POSSIBLY claim they are champions of private property rights and those who oppose the mosque are acting against the Constitution when they themselves ROUTINELY use not only public pressure but legal tricks to prevent private businesses from being built?
Imagine if the city of New York passed a law that all Mosque's in Manhattan over the value of 50 million dollars must provide healthcare for all the volunteers and employees of the mosque in order to try to prevent it from being built. The left would be outraged, but its exactly what they have done to private business themselves.
The argument that the mosque is inappropriate is no different than saying its 'not fair' that Walmart puts its locally owned competitors out of business. Both arguments are perfectly VALID and LEGAL things to say, but essentially they are just OPINIONS. Why is it OK for the left to use emotional arguments such as putting mom and pop businesses out of business and providing healthcare to its employees when denying a Walmart the right to build on private property but when people speak out against a Mosque being build NEAR ground zero being inappropriate (An emotional argument) the people who do so are suddenly anti-American and acting against the Constitution?
The pro-property rights position and claims that the opponents of the 'Near Ground Zero' Mosque are anti-American and unconstitutional are simply politically motivated hackery by an increasingly desperate political party.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram