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 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 128

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

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    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.....

    .....one political philosopher at the University of Chicago? Imagination and a creative desire to explain any political impulse deemed strange.
    Fiddy, I respect your learning but I'm afraid this post completely misses the point. At no time do you explain why The Power of Nightmares contradicts itself. It doesn't pretend that Strauss was the only influence on neo-con doctrine. All your post proves is that not all neo-cons were "Straussians" as if that means anything to non-academics or had huge significance.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  2. #62
    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
    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.
    I appreciate the response, but I think you're missing the point of the film, which isn't about conspiracies. It simply analyzes neoconservatism as a political movement in the same way one might analyze modern conservatism or liberalism. Such an analysis naturally refers to certain influential thinkers, but it doesn't set out to prove any kind of cultish devotion or strict ideological purity. You're accusing the film of being sloppy for not doing something it never sets out to do. What it does do is show how some like-minded people have shaped foreign policy in ways that all but guarantee a perpetual state of war. For example, by adopting the Precautionary Principle from the environmentalist movement and applying it to foreign policy, they were able to see threats and respond aggressively even when there was no evidence.

    As for democracy, I don't think anyone would argue that neoconservatives don't love the word. It's the substance that they seem to loathe. This is no contradiction at all if you look at it from the Machiavellian point of view. In that case "democracy" is just a catchy brand name that one can use to sell hegemony to the masses at home. It may well be that neocons other than Ledeen are less clear in their thinking about it, i.e. they actually believe we're trying to spread real democracy. If so, they would also have to believe that democracy necessarily leads to compliance with American demands, since that's what we invariably are trying to enforce. This is a contradiction of sorts, but you can't blame anyone but the neocons for that. No one is accusing them of being altogether coherent in their thinking.
    Last edited by Winston Smith; 08-25-10 at 06:53 AM.

  3. #63
    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 Andalublue View Post
    Fiddy, I respect your learning but I'm afraid this post completely misses the point. At no time do you explain why The Power of Nightmares contradicts itself. It doesn't pretend that Strauss was the only influence on neo-con doctrine. All your post proves is that not all neo-cons were "Straussians" as if that means anything to non-academics or had huge significance.
    Yeah, the main concern here seems to be rehabilitating Strauss. That may or may not be a worthy goal, but it's merely academic.

  4. #64
    Educator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-15-10 @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    718

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Gee... I'd didn't know the "constitutionalist teabaggers" had grown to 60-70 percent of the population. I guess they have no worries come Nov.
    Blah, blah blah. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Teabaggers are just the loudest bigots. Same freakin' crowd that demands that their "Constitutional rights" be sacrosanct are the first to walk on those of people they are PREJUDICED against.

    Tyranny by the majority remains tyranny.

  5. #65
    Educator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-15-10 @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    718

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Yet there are Muslims and even the democrat head of the senate that disagrees with you...
    So what? That makes ignoring the Constitution ok? Selective outrage is a wonderful thing, eh?

  6. #66
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    08-30-10 @ 09:37 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.
    Yeah i agree with you, it's their government, it's their problem. But the problem is that we give their government billions each years.


    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.
    I don't condone terrorism. The sacrifice of any innocent life is never justified. My point is to listen and to learn the reasons that motivate them to attack us. And our meddling in their countries, is the principal reason why they came here.

    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.
    Well first they don't have elected officials . But even it was the case, we're talking about terrorists here. These people are irrational enough to sacrifice the life of innocent people. When they see foreign troops in their land that are accepted by their corrupt leaders, and some drones are causing some "collateral damage" on some family, do you think they're gonna ask us politely to leave? no their reaction will be to take revenge any way it's possible.

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

    They're terrorists, not humans.
    The problem is in many case, our foreign policies allows a lot of atrocity to occur consciously or not.

    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?
    Nope i find this statement pretty offensive. And our insane foreign policy is what caused 9/11. We were allies with Saddam, supported him with money, training, weapons and other technology for years. Same with Bin laden. We're fabricating our own enemies.
    No. Saddam Hussein 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?
    This was a collective punishment. Those sanctions which were aimed at Saddam, only hurt the Iraqi people. This was pretty stupid, and caused a lot of resentment not against him but against the people who imposed those sanctions.
    Last edited by futfut; 08-25-10 at 10:31 AM.

  7. #67
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    On the plus side...it is refreshing to once again see so many liberals coming out in the defense of religion. I am sure you will be just as staunch in your support come Christams time.
    Oh believe me Im looking forward to another retarded War on Christmas by the retards on the religious right. I wonder if Ill be able to break my record of kicking out people who go ape when my employees dont wish someone a Merry Christmas.
    Last edited by Cold Highway; 08-25-10 at 12:48 PM.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  8. #68
    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 Agent Ferris View Post
    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?
    I'll respond to this with some maps for your viewing pleasure...

    Churches in Manhattan - Google Maps

    Mosques in Manhattan - Google Maps



    Why are you even asking "how many Muslims live in the area"? Should I ask how many Christians live in my area and use that number to determine how many churches should go in around the city I live in? The answer to that question is "WTF NO!"

    Just like any other religious location, if they can't get enough people coming through they will eventually close down. And I highly doubt this Islamic Center will have any problems getting enough people to go there.
    "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." —John Adams

  9. #69
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    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.
    Iraq invaded Kuwait on charges of stealing Iraqi oil via slant drilling. Then 8 days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie - in response to a complaint from Saddam about Kuwaiti actions against Iraq - told him: "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. Secretary of State James Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

    So most of it could have been resolved with proper diplomacy first. Maybe saying instead something like "The United States would have very negative opinions of open hostilities and depending on the situation; may have to get involved should open hostilities develop".
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #70
    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 Jucon View Post
    I'll respond to this with some maps for your viewing pleasure...

    Churches in Manhattan - Google Maps

    Mosques in Manhattan - Google Maps



    Why are you even asking "how many Muslims live in the area"? Should I ask how many Christians live in my area and use that number to determine how many churches should go in around the city I live in? The answer to that question is "WTF NO!"
    It goes towards motivation, if there is not a pressing need for another Mosque then why build it? Given the words of this Imam I think the motivations are clear IE to give the proverbial **** you to the American people.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-25-10 at 02:08 PM.

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •