View Poll Results: Read OP

Voters
82. You may not vote on this poll
  • Completely Agree

    19 23.17%
  • Agree

    9 10.98%
  • Somewhat Agree

    5 6.10%
  • Neither Agree nor Disagree

    1 1.22%
  • Somewhat disagree

    0 0%
  • Disagree

    12 14.63%
  • Completely Disagree

    36 43.90%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 128

Thread: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

  1. #51
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,656

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    Watch the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares some time. It's an enlightening comparison of the neoconservative and Islamist ideologies. The two are very similar in some ways, particularly in their deep suspicion toward Western democracy.
    Sigh. The Power of Nightmares is an idiotic compilation of anti-Straussian lore gathered by conspiracy-minded individuals like Shadia Drury and Anne Norton who contradict themselves many times in their own works, while improperly grabbing documentary footage without giving proper credit or context.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  2. #52
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Read the article then respond to the poll. Please don't vote unless you've read the article.

    Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque! | Ron Paul .com

    How much do you agree/disagree with Ron Paul in this article? Explain

    Largely Agree. Has everyone forgotten that a mosque already exists in that area, closer to the WTC site than this recently planned community center. And this mosque has been there for many years.

  3. #53
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    915

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Sigh. The Power of Nightmares is an idiotic compilation of anti-Straussian lore gathered by conspiracy-minded individuals like Shadia Drury and Anne Norton who contradict themselves many times in their own works, while improperly grabbing documentary footage without giving proper credit or context.
    How does the film contradict itself, in your opinion?

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by futfut View Post
    They don't want a u.s military base in their land.
    Here's a novel idea.

    They tell THEIR government they don't like what THEIR government is doing, and they stop murdering babies, women, and men in some other country. If they don't happen to have a say in what THEIR government is doing, they should GROW UP and realize that what they have to do is change THEIR government.

    And if other people would stop giving those sick bastards the benefit of the doubt that doesn't exist, and if they stopped giving those animals excuses, it would be easier to exterminate them.

    Clearly, when THEIR government ASKS our government to station US troops on their soil, or when THEIR government formally gives the US PERMISSION to station troops on their soil, then their piddly widdly feelings don't mean ****, they don't have the least shred of legitimacy, and when they murder women and babies and anyone else, they're just **** eating pigs that deserve to be slaughtered with a dull knife.

    So why are you people repeating that sad, sorry excuse of an excuse?

    Would you agree if Russia or China decide to build a military inside the u.s?
    I'd campaign to impeach my elected officials.

    If necessary, Sharron Angle's Second Amendment Solution on those elected treasonous elected officials is a valid Constitutional option.

    Murdering babies in Moscow because my political leaders in Washington invited the foe inside is not logical, productive, or moral.

    So much for your attempt to establish moral equivalency with and sympathy for baby-murdering terrorists.

    ok why should they be a little pissed prior to 9/11 ?
    Who gives a **** why they're pissed?

    They violated universal laws of human decency and thereby deserve to be shot when found.

    They're terrorists, not humans.

    Our unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinian.
    The Palestinians almost had a case. Too bad they decided to cheer the murder of thousands of Americans, too bad they decided to cast their fate in with Hamas and thereby became terrorists.

    They've made their choice, they can die with it unless they repent.

    Our support for the dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...
    Welcome to the real world. Nice of you to grow up. Our international agreements do not give terrorists license to murder anyone. They're still pig**** eating rabid dogs, and that's that.

    we installed the Shah in Iran in 1953. Back, when we were still allies with Saddam, we support Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq conflict, selling them chemical weapon among other things.
    Meanwhile, Iran was dedicated to global jihad and vowed the US was the Great Satan, and were exporting terrorism on an industrial scale. Using Iraq as a foil against the primitives that seized Iran was a bold and successful strategic move that kept the kiddies occupied while the US dealt with the threat presented by the USSR. That policy was extremely effective, getting millions of Iraqis and Iranians to kill each other at very little expense to the US.

    You don't like it when foreign policy works?

    The bombing and sanctions/embargo in Iraq during the golf war which ensured the deaths of half a million children.
    No. Saddam Hussien never had to starve his own countries children. Since those deaths were caused by Saddam, not the United States or the rest of the world, can you explain your angst?

    To state it plainly, the individual that takes action against a nation in opposition and protest to the actions of his own government is nothing but a criminal. If he murders, he's a rabid animal that should be shot at our earliest convenience, unless it's more convenient to push him out of a B52 at 35,000 feet.

  5. #55
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by futfut View Post
    They don't want a u.s military base in their land. Would you agree if Russia or China decide to build a military inside the u.s?
    ok why should they be a little pissed prior to 9/11 ?
    Our unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinian.
    Our support for the dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...
    We installed the Shah in Iran in 1953. Back, when we were still allies with Saddam, we support Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq conflict, selling them chemical weapon among other things.
    The bombing and sanctions/embargo in Iraq during the golf war which ensured the deaths of half a million children.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Wait for it... wait for it...
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Here's a novel idea.

    They tell THEIR government they don't like what THEIR government is doing, and they stop murdering babies, women, and men in some other country. If they don't happen to have a say in what THEIR government is doing, they should GROW UP and realize that what they have to do is change THEIR government.

    And if other people would stop giving those sick bastards the benefit of the doubt that doesn't exist, and if they stopped giving those animals excuses, it would be easier to exterminate them.

    Clearly, when THEIR government ASKS our government to station US troops on their soil, or when THEIR government formally gives the US PERMISSION to station troops on their soil, then their piddly widdly feelings don't mean ****, they don't have the least shred of legitimacy, and when they murder women and babies and anyone else, they're just **** eating pigs that deserve to be slaughtered with a dull knife.

    So why are you people repeating that sad, sorry excuse of an excuse?



    I'd campaign to impeach my elected officials.

    If necessary, Sharron Angle's Second Amendment Solution on those elected treasonous elected officials is a valid Constitutional option.

    Murdering babies in Moscow because my political leaders in Washington invited the foe inside is not logical, productive, or moral.

    So much for your attempt to establish moral equivalency with and sympathy for baby-murdering terrorists.



    Who gives a **** why they're pissed?

    They violated universal laws of human decency and thereby deserve to be shot when found.

    They're terrorists, not humans.



    The Palestinians almost had a case. Too bad they decided to cheer the murder of thousands of Americans, too bad they decided to cast their fate in with Hamas and thereby became terrorists.

    They've made their choice, they can die with it unless they repent.



    Welcome to the real world. Nice of you to grow up. Our international agreements do not give terrorists license to murder anyone. They're still pig**** eating rabid dogs, and that's that.



    Meanwhile, Iran was dedicated to global jihad and vowed the US was the Great Satan, and were exporting terrorism on an industrial scale. Using Iraq as a foil against the primitives that seized Iran was a bold and successful strategic move that kept the kiddies occupied while the US dealt with the threat presented by the USSR. That policy was extremely effective, getting millions of Iraqis and Iranians to kill each other at very little expense to the US.

    You don't like it when foreign policy works?



    No. Saddam Hussien never had to starve his own countries children. Since those deaths were caused by Saddam, not the United States or the rest of the world, can you explain your angst?

    To state it plainly, the individual that takes action against a nation in opposition and protest to the actions of his own government is nothing but a criminal. If he murders, he's a rabid animal that should be shot at our earliest convenience, unless it's more convenient to push him out of a B52 at 35,000 feet.
    And boom goes the dynamite.
    "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." óJohn Adams

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by futfut View Post
    They don't want a u.s military base in their land. Would you agree if Russia or China decide to build a military inside the u.s?
    We were there (and have since left Saudi Arabia BTW) upon the invitation of the sovereign government to defend the kingdom against the overt aggressions of Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait and continued his aggressive stance even after he signed the armistice. There opposition to our presence is directly related to their religion.

    ok why should they be a little pissed prior to 9/11 ?
    Our unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinian.
    We give more money to the Palestinians than any other country on the planet.

    Our support for the dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...
    A) Those dictatorships were not installed by the United States, Jordan, Egypt, and Kuwait are arguably not even dictatorships with Kuwait being only mildly authoritarian.

    B) Bin Laden and his ideological fellow travelers are not opposed to dictatorship and tyranny, their opposition to those governments has nothing to do with the humanitarian conditions within those countries in fact they don't believe they are authoritarian enough with their western music, women not dressed in full burqa, etc, look at Taliban controlled Afghanistan and you will get a good idea of what would replace those current governments if Bin Laden got his way.

    They are opposed to those governments specifically because they feel they are to liberal IE they believe they have fallen into Jahiliyya as formulated by Sayyid Qutb due to the decadent influences of the west and in order to combat this those governments and the governments in the west need to be replaced with theocratic puritanically sharia based states under a reestablished caliphate as it was after the first few generations after Mohammad.
    We installed the Shah in Iran in 1953.
    A) Wrong type of Muslim.

    B) We didn't install the Shah he was already the head of state under the Iranian Constitution, we merely backed the Shah against Mossadeq after Mossadeq (who was not democratically elected but appointed by the Shah and ratified by the Majiles) dissolved parliament through an unconstitutional and fraudulent referendum in which he gained a 99.9% yay vote and proceeded to rule by decree.

    Back, when we were still allies with Saddam, we support Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq conflict, selling them chemical weapon among other things.
    A) Again Iran is controlled by an entirely different type of Muslim from that which attacked us on 9-11.

    B) You don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about, the United States only supplied Saddam with a grand total of .05% of his foreign arm sales. We did not sell him WMD's or the technology or expertise necessary to produce WMD's it is suggested that he purchased lightly to unregulated chemical precursors; such as, chlorine from the United States but this too is false according to the Iraqi's own disclosure to the United Nations.

    The bombing and sanctions/embargo in Iraq during the golf war which ensured the deaths of half a million children.
    Again you are completely ignorant, first of all we intentionally attempted to avoid key civilian infrastructure, and second it was Saddam's misappropriation of the aid from Oil for Food program that caused the suffering, northern Iraq was under nearly the exact same economic sanctions, however, unlike in central and southern Iraq it was the U.N. and local Kurds who were in control of distributing the supplies and in Northern Iraq infant mortality rates went down not up, it was not the sanctions it was Saddam taking the food and medical aid and reselling them on the black market to use the profits to keep his military afloat and to build himself lavish palaces and keep he and his cohorts living in the lap of extreme opulence.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-25-10 at 01:35 AM.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    An occupation is an occupation, regardless of what religion you believe in.
    Our presence in Saudi Arabia was not an occupation by any definition of the word. We were there (and have since left Saudi Arabia BTW) upon the invitation of the sovereign government to defend the kingdom against the overt aggressions of Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait and continued his aggressive stance even after he signed the armistice. At no point did we take over the governmental functions of the sovereign government. Their opposition to our presence is directly related to their religion.

    It's charming that you think we're there to defend Muslims against other Muslims, but such naivete generally isn't shared by those on the receiving end of our beneficence.
    We were in Saudi Arabia to defend the kingdom against the overt aggression of Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait.

    Our presence in Saudi Arabia was not a military occupation by any stretch of the imagination and it takes the worst type of newspeak propagandist to label it as such.

    I've cited examples to you before. Until we can agree on the basic facts,
    Your right, like the textbook definition of the word occupation for example.

    for example the fact that the US intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure in Iraq, there's not much point in arguing about causes or effects.
    lol the U.S. intentionally avoided civilian infastructure hence our use of smart weapons.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-25-10 at 01:32 AM.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    Largely Agree. Has everyone forgotten that a mosque already exists in that area, closer to the WTC site than this recently planned community center. And this mosque has been there for many years.
    A) That Mosque was there before 9-11.

    B) This actually helps your case as there are already two Mosques in the general area then why is a third Mega-Mosque necessary? Are we to believe that there is a pressing demand for a 3rd Mosque within 20 blocks of 2 others in a highly commercial non-residential area? How many Muslims actually even live within the vicinity of these Mosques?

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Keeping this here for later in case I get challenged on it took forever to find:


  10. #60
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,656

    Re: "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots" article about 'GZ Mosque'... Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    How does the film contradict itself, in your opinion?
    In the original context I was referring to Drury and Norton, who though not the first, were certainly some of the more prominent anti-Straussian authors of the past 20 years. That being said, if one knew the context of much of the film's subjects, it was a really sloppy work. It, like others before it, relies upon some sort of unified theory of Leo Strauss being the Neoconservative philosopher galore who will show the key of neoconservative agendas. In reality, the authors of such viewpoints have to completely obscure the sources they are using as evidence in order to prove some plot exists, suckering people who like to believe in the small having too much power over the many.

    First off, one reason why Power of Nightmares had a difficult time having an official US DVD release was because of its use of copyrighted material. One such use was a clip from Arguing the World. In the original context, Irving Kristol was explaining in his polemic fashion why 20th century liberalism failed to bring about the promise which it had argued in terms of social policy, via his reflections of The Public Interest: a journal purely dedicated to social public policy in the vein of Bell's End of Ideology. Power of Nightmares mostly focused on a foreign policy aspect, albeit, with a broad view of attention to nihilism and materialism of the 20th century. The majority of the time, the Public Interest had no such interest, though it would sometimes approach a Closing of the American Mind-esque vain, but mostly because a many contributors were professors themselves. Now, Irving had met Leo Strauss for a short time during the later portion of Strauss's life (and coincidently, some of his most important work), and professed to believe that Strauss had an impact upon him. What they talked about, to my knowledge was not relayed to the public record, but let's consider some of this use of Arguing the World.

    Why are neoconservatives connected with Strauss? Well, some of the famous so-called Neoconservatives are Straussians, or have studied with Strauss, Straussians, or are friends with them. But the truth is, not many of the prominent neoconservatives are Straussians or former students of Strauss. Former students of Strauss or Straussians, or professed Straussians further split the record of what is to be believed. Let's take Irving Kristol and his son William Kristol. We know Irving wrote about the United States finding itself in a more imperial moment, relying upon imperialistic rhetoric to deal with (his era's) current foreign policy issues. Nevertheless, many liberals have seized upon Irving's writing at the close of the Cold War of skepticism of spreading democracy, not just philosophically, but practically (pointing to the limited number of times it has been accomplished). William, on the other hand, takes a much different approach to the problem of foreign policy. Taught by Harvey Mansfield, he has a certain degree of Straussian pedigree, but William fully embraces the notion that in certain situations (like Iraq) it was indeed possible, desirable, and recommended that US policymakers remove the regime and democratize Iraq.

    Francis Fukuyama, a prominent neoconservative, or perhaps, if you will wish to believe it, a former neoconservative, still holds highly the lessons he grabbed from Strauss. And yet, Fukuyama is skeptical of Iraq democratization because of its complexity. Among the fact that he disagreed with the Iraq war, he grabbed on to Strauss's introduction of City and Man in which Strauss explicitly states that westernizing cultures without (I believe) 3 prior requirements was likely to be folly.

    If we are using neoconservatives as they exist, may we ask why we are using Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, and the neoconservative label itself to prop up Strauss? Richard Perle was not a student of Strauss, he was a student and friend of Albert Wohlstetter before loyally serving Senator Henry Jackson. His passion was defense policy, negotiation, and nuclear defense, not philosophy. Wohlstetter was oddly considered by people like Norton as some kind of foot soldier for Strauss because he was a professor at the University of Chicago. Michael Ledeen is a keen follower of Machiavelli, propping up Machiavelli as much as he can, which is incredibly odd for a Straussian, considering Strauss distasted Machiavelli, and even a good Straussian conspiracy theorist knows that Straussians supposedly conceal the truth to the masses to only give the true teachings to the few who can handle it. Why prop up Machiavelli all the time if Strauss was covering his tracks by esoterically supporting Machiavelli? Aren't all Straussians apart of a cult, unable to break the party line? Then again, I suppose Drury and Norton told us exactly that, while at the same time continuing to suggest Straussians as some sort of uncompromising cult.

    What about William Kristol's good friend and colleague (supposedly neoconservative) Robert Kagan? Surely he must be a Straussian. Well, not so, according to him. Firstly, he could not really understand Strauss, as is a common problem. Second, he views Straussian interpretations of Plato and History to be sorely lacking in reality. Plato was not kidding, and History is not an everlasting dialog between writer, past writers, and a philosopher's future readers. That, and Donald Kagan (his father) had a great many arguments with Allan Bloom over The Republic.

    What about Donald Rumseld? Well, he was always a conservative, but never a keen reader of any political philosopher. The man uses a standing desk, can't stop becoming involved in governmental affairs, and loves calculating technologically. He never struck anyone as the contemplative type. But his under secretary was. There's Paul Wolfowitz, the perfect example of the conspiracy theory of Straussians come to life. A brief student of Leo Strauss, further educated closely by Allan Bloom and raised into defense policy by Albert Wohlstetter. It seems like a shoe-in. Perhaps it was, but let's be honest. An account by Bloom's friend, Saul Bellow, relayed the information that Bloom loved to brag, loved office drama, and loved to feel connected. Bloom was a bit of a blabber mouth, so Wolfowitz could never talk much about what was going on behind the scenes. Tim Robbins, though gifted as he was in Hollywood, was too idiotic to know what a liability a drama-fed political philosophy professor could be for a young and talented Pentagon official.....nevermind the fact that in Strauss's writing, it seems all too obvious that the man was deeply skeptical about the usefulness of a philosopher in public life if it could bring the public to ruin, and perhaps endanger the life of the philosopher himself for merely looking at truth and daring to say his findings in public.

    What about the neoconservatives of Irving Kristol's time. Surely since they were alive during Strauss's era, Strauss really had an influence upon them. Well, actually, not really. Most of the prominent figures of neoconservatism had no need of Strauss, they were looking into matters of specific domestic policy programs and perhaps socialist intellectuals of the time and past. Strauss rarely ever comes up. Strauss rarely comes up into the matter of neoconservatives now. How could so many neoconservatives simply not read Strauss or disagree with Strauss become a part of the supposedly elitist agenda of a one political philosopher at the University of Chicago? Imagination and a creative desire to explain any political impulse deemed strange.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •