audendi

#1 | Comment #82600 by D. Greene on January 19, 2008 @ 5:29 am

Might I add that 1) This blog is NOT a democracy, it’s my blog, and 2) Quantity of comments, profanity, and weak arguments are not going to win this argument. Quantity != Quality

Please continue. I say Ron Paul would win this debate, of course. I’m a Ron Paul supporter, after all.

#2 | Comment #82896 by Esther on January 19, 2008 @ 11:40 am

Ron Paul would win. I say this because I do not think it is possible for Strauss to answer the moral questions his philosophy raises. I know that if you ask them of a Straussian they always avoid the question or tell you that you’re stupid. I just don’t think there is an answer.

#3 | Comment #82971 by Eric on January 19, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

Okay, I can’t resist chiming in on this one. I think a “battle of the wits” is an inappropriate method to compare Strauss and Paul. Such a comparison is pointless if you are really trying to get to the substance of the man. Each man has his own moniker: Leo Strauss=Philosopher/Neocon, Ron Paul=Conservative Politician. Ron Paul wants to use his political position to move forward his conservative policies while Strauss wanted to develop and disseminate his philosophical positions and, in turn, use American politics to implement his Zionist agenda. All one has to do is look into Strauss’ life before, during, and after the Second World War to see how the loss of his entire family in German concentration camps led him to expand upon his belief in the political philosophy of Hobbes to include an outright rejection of liberalism/nihilism that (ironically) excludes a separation of power. (Can you say Nazism?) Neoconservatism wasn’t his goal. It was merely a means to an end - namely a permanent Jewish state in Israel. Don’t believe me? Look at his contemporaries: William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Allan Bloom, Abram Shulsky. The list goes on. And it’s should come as no surprise that their family histories mirror Strauss’.

The Republicans didn’t choose neoconservatism. The neoconservatives merely attached themselves to the most suitable party. Ron Paul is a thorn in the side of the neoconservative movement (not the Republicans like everyone thinks) because he wants to eliminate the blank checks that continue to be written to prop up a regimes around the world, including Israel.

So who’s smarter? Like I said, it doesn’t really matter. The question should be who has been or will be more effective in achieving their goals. On this point, Leo Strauss wins hands down.

#4 | Comment #83824 by dave on January 20, 2008 @ 6:56 am

Jack Shafer on the New York Times hiring Bill Kristol.
http://www.slate.com/id/2181266/

#5 | Comment #84271 by D. Greene on January 20, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

Eric, you couldn’t be more wrong, but I’ll count you as a vote for Dr. Strauss.

#6 | Comment #86443 by daniel silliman on January 22, 2008 @ 10:05 pm

To be fair, it should be a match between Paul and Strauss or between the respective supporters of the doctors. I don’t know the answer, but I think I’d be really bored by the competition between the fanatics, unless it wasn’t on the internets. Then I’d go with the Strauss fanatics, because a) they have more resources, b) the have govt. positions and c) they have larger weapons.

Between the Dr.s, a debate might be interesting.

#7 | Comment #90283 by Ralph Hial on January 27, 2008 @ 12:14 am

To be succinct, Strauss would win the argument since he would CONTROL THE DEBATE in the first place. America is Neo-Darwinist, and the monied and Jewish elites are firmly in control.

The entire political process in the USA itself is Straussian, since there is what Nader called a Two-Party Duopoly (essentially, a 1-party state like old Russia) and there are many barriers intentionally set to stop any other parties from coming forward. This stops real debates from happening, which Ron Paul has to deal with directly.

As for Ron Paul, he will probably have to drop out of the race by the end of the primaries, since all this “winner take all” setup (note: which favors the majority party, and not by accident) ensures that even running 10% of the party vote, he’ll get ZERO delegates. I intend to vote for Paul in my own state’s primary (Ohio), but by the time Nov 2008 rolls around, I have no doubt that I’ll have to write in his name when I cast my “suggestion” vote for President.

#8 | Comment #90834 by Joe on January 27, 2008 @ 11:19 pm

Dude, remember that our dear Mr. Speller was a Straussian (according to Dickerson, at least). I hope this line helps you ponder the depth of your question.

#9 | Comment #93004 by Dan H. on January 29, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

What would they be debating? If they were battling over whether Count Chocula or Honeycomb was better I’d like to think the one with truth (Count Chocula) on his side would win.

#10 | Comment #94510 by Eric on January 30, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

A bit off topic but I can’t help but mention that Rudy 9iu11iani is dropping out of the race after spending $50 million and receiving one (!) delegate. Ron Paul keeps chugging along. Three cheers for the Tortoise who outran the Hare.

#11 | Comment #102426 by D. Greene on February 5, 2008 @ 2:44 am

It will be interesting to see who else drops out of the race after Super Tuesday is over! Place your bets!