If Rand Paul is now a "neocon", so is Pat Buchanan

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Pat Buchanan is no champion of liberty, in fact I think he is just another bumbling talking head. Rand Paul is definitely a neoconservative now, he has embraced the very party that ruined America.

Pat Buchanan is a patriot. He is also a party guy. Rand is not a party guy, and this is why people are upset. Rand can still be trusted, but the fact that he endorsed Romney dinks him in the credibility column. Rand could also be using this to setup a situation in 2016 where he posits, "I endorsed you in 2012, you won because of our people, and now you have gone back on everything you said you were going to do, therefore, I am going to Primary you." And thats when we will have our opportunity.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Pat is a paleoconservative. He actually does believe in isolationism, not just noninterventionism. Isolationism is noninterventionism, closed borders, and protectionism in trade (balanced trade or reciprocal trade). He isn't a libertarian. He only believes in about half of what we do. He's all for making laws to force morality on people. He isn't for ending the drug war, last I checked. He isn't for equality for gay people. He is borderline racist (it's not all that borderline, really) as well. He's a freakin' culture warrior. He's not on our side on many issues. He's waaaayyy better than neocons, and I respect Pat for the role he played in holding down the fort of old school conservatism until the Barry Goldwater libertarianism came back via Paul (and Paul took it even further than Goldie)...but he's no libertarian. He's in the liberty movement with one foot, and in the statist camp with the other foot.

I mean go watch him on Stossel right now...he's arguing the segregation, anti-gay stuff, and anti-women stuff of the 1950s was better than what we have now because society was more Christian and because we had a more unified "culture". Collectivist nonsense built on nationalism! He thinks interracial marriage is bad! It isn't bad or good, for God's Sake, Pat!

Uh, hate to tell ya, but Dr. Paul did not agree with forced segregation, either. Freedom means that we make those choices for ourselves, even if some of the choices are disgusting to others. Dr. Paul also is not in favor of using big government force with regard to special interests; including gay marriage. For you to even mention these things shows that one, you are not a libertarian and two, you have no clue what it means to be one.

Rand is clearly half-a-libertarian. His other half is neoconservative, not paleoconservative...hence the Iran sanctions. He also, therefore, is no libertarian. Libertarians don't vote for acts of war like sanctions, even with silly Orwellian Amendments to those sanctions that say basically 'this act of war is in no way to be construed as an act of war'. BTW, acts of war (like sanctions) when war is not declared are unConstitutional!

That's ridiculous. Rand isn't a neocon.

These three things (half neocon/half libertarian, paleocon, and libertarian) can all look very similar to the untrained eye...that's why studying philosophy is so important.

Yes indeedy, and some people claiming to be libertarians are really just leftist pukes who are all for using big government to force their leftist crap down everyone else's throats.

Ron is a libertarian (who happens to be a Republican). He may be personally conservative on social issues, but he's not on economic issues, and isn't conservative in terms of legislating morality. Conservatives are Keynesians on economics (libertarians are Austrians or some form of free market), and want to legislate morality. Hence, Ron is a libertarian. Libertarians can be individually personally conservative or liberal...it's irrelevant because we don't want to legislate it. Hence, there are left and right libertarians.

It is complete and utter bullshit to claim that all conservatives are Keynesians. Traditional conservatives were for laissez faire capitalism before the Libertarian Party ever began.

Rand came across to most of us to be a Ron-esque libertarian. He turned out not to be.

See, we don't want to have a successful Party or success with a Party...we want to have a successful philosophy. The Enlightenment wasn't a Party, it was an intellectual Paradigm Shift in society. We'll abandon this Party as fast as it abandon's our principles, or we're morons just moving incrimentally back to where we started and turning ourselves into what we fought against.

This is about principles, not some damn Party. You do not sellout your principles and endorse a Party's candidate just to play politics. Ron didn't in 2008, hence why I respect him. You want respect, stop supporting Party over principles, and stop making excuses for those who do support Party over principles.

We need cannibalism to weed out (or call out, and steer back toward liberty) those who aren't for liberty, but are for a little liberty and a lot of horrid statism. You can be a minarchist, but you have to support liberty or I won't support you or let you make excuses for those who do it. If that makes us "nuts", then I say being "sane" must mean compromise (not coalitions) and having no principles before Party politics. I don't want to be "sane" if that's what you define as sane. I want to have firm principles and educate people to our enlightened position of liberty. I'd rather lose elections and educate more and more people until society finally sees it our way, than to win a few elections by selling our souls.

Some of you want to win elections so much you'll jump in bed with warmongers and neocons and paleocons. People like me want to force them, by way of enlightened transition, to jump in bed with us instead.

No thanks to that. You who advocate using big government force, as long as it is to cram your agenda down your countrymen's throats.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not so sure. I can't recall them blaming us for McCain's loss in 08, but, even if they did, our movement grew during the last 4 years, so, again, I'm not sure what is to be gained by supporting the nominee when we could probably gain just as much by standing alone on principle.

But, this is why i stopped caring what the GOP thinks of us:

If something bad happens, we will be blamed.

If something good happens, we will get no credit.

If nothing happens, we will be forgotten.

I'm pretty sure the old guard is going to keep viewing us as that nutty relative who people speak to at family gatherings just to be polite, regardless of what we do or say. Therefore, I say it's best to just keep doing our own thing and not really care what the increasingly-irrelevant and self-discrediting people think of us.

Just to be sure you understand me. I don't give one crap about the Republican Party. I hate political parties and I have been registered as a Republican for a long time. I am only interested in getting liberty candidates in office so that they can turn turn around this shit. That's all. Finito.

My only interest in the Republican Party is to use it as a vehicle, a tool, to get our guys elected. Nothing more and nothing else.

I am not naive enough to believe that we will not occasionally run into some turncoats along the way. Maybe a whole lot of them. Maybe Rand is one. I don't know. But, for me at least, I don't have near enough information to make that decision. And my own actions don't change whatsoever based upon his endorsement of Romney. What's more, I understand him doing it. I just hated when he did it and him making comments that made it sound like we had something in common. How ridiculous.

 

[donnay]

Mainly, I think it was so that our movement would not be blamed for Romney losing to Obama. Because just like we are looking for someone to hang because Ron Paul is likely not going to win, so will the Republican faithful when their candidate doesn't win.

So we compromise our principles in the process? It was the GOP that turn their backs on us! Stop making excuses, please. It insults the intelligence of every liberty loving person.


As far as Pat Buchanan is concerned he plays both sides against the middle--he is paid well to do this. If he is so anti-establishment he sure doesn't hide it by being a part of the corporate controlled media.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So we compromise our principles in the process? It was the GOP that turn their backs on us! Stop making excuses, please. It insults the intelligence of every liberty loving person.

It would be nice if you stopped twisting my words, Donnay. Where did I ever say that we should compromise principles? Good luck finding it.

I have also said multiple times that I don't give a rat's ass about the Republican Party beyond using it as a vehicle, a tool, to get liberty candidates elected. That's it.

And Donnay, before you start accusing someone else of compromising a principle, maybe you should also hold yourself accountable to a few. Like not twisting someone else's words and posting falsehoods.

As far as Pat Buchanan is concerned he plays both sides against the middle--he is paid well to do this. If he is so anti-establishment he sure doesn't hide it by being a part of the corporate controlled media.

Oh sheesh, turn off the conspiracy channels for a few minutes, will you? Not everyone in the world is some evil person. By the way, last time I knew MSNBC fired his ass for his comments about the Israeli government.

By the way, do you have the same view of Judge Napolitano? He works for FOX News, you know. Oh, and does that also include Ben Swann?

Note: I do agree that most of the media is scum. But, to make a blanket statement is going a bit too far, don't you think? But, someday maybe you will also apply that same microscope you are using to Alex Jones.

 

[donnay]

It would be nice if you stopped twisting my words, Donnay. Where did I ever say that we should compromise principles? Good luck finding it.

I didn't say YOU said that, you inferred it by making excuses for Rand. "Mainly, I think it was so that our movement would not be blamed for Romney losing to Obama. Because just like we are looking for someone to hang because Ron Paul is likely not going to win, so will the Republican faithful when their candidate doesn't win."

Oh sheesh, turn off the conspiracy channels for a few minutes, will you? Not everyone in the world is some evil person. By the way, last time I knew MSNBC fired his ass for his comments about the Israeli government.

Did I say Pat was evil? I said; "As far as Pat Buchanan is concerned he plays both sides against the middle--he is paid well to do this."

Pat Buchanan allowed himself to be controlled while he sat in a corporate controlled media job. If he didn't he would have been gone a long, long time ago. He was also part of the establishment.




Nevertheless when he was an analyst for the corporate controlled media, he never once endorsed Ron Paul, yet the similarities in their thinking are quite close--doesn't that strike you odd?

As far as Judge Nap is concerned, I have nothing but admiration and respect for him. He doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth whether it be on Fox News or a speech given for some function he was asked to speak at. Consequently that is what axed his show.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
~George Orwell

The Judge is a true patriot to liberty!

But, someday maybe you will also apply that same microscope you are using to Alex Jones.

Again let me reiterate, your hatred of Alex Jones blinds you. Judge Napolitano has been on Alex's show a few times as well. Too bad you missed those great interviews.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't say YOU said that, you inferred it by making excuses for Rand. "Mainly, I think it was so that our movement would not be blamed for Romney losing to Obama. Because just like we are looking for someone to hang because Ron Paul is likely not going to win, so will the Republican faithful when their candidate doesn't win."

Which principle does this compromise?

Did I say Pat was evil? I said; "As far as Pat Buchanan is concerned he plays both sides against the middle--he is paid well to do this."

You aren't exactly proclaiming his goodness. lol.

Pat Buchanan allowed himself to be controlled while he sat in a corporate controlled media job. If he didn't he would have been gone a long, long time ago. He was also part of the establishment.

Thanks for reminding me of that video. I don't know, Donnay, maybe he is. I frankly don't completely trust any of them totally and that includes Judge Napolitano. But, if they can help us achieve our goals, I will use the hell out of them.

Nevertheless when he was an analyst for the corporate controlled media, he never once endorsed Ron Paul, yet the similarities in their thinking are quite close--doesn't that strike you odd?

My understanding is that they cannot endorse a candidate, per their contracts. But, from the very first debate in '07, Pat made it clear that he liked Ron Paul. Plus, his blog was nothing but Ron Paul.

As far as Judge Nap is concerned, I have nothing but admiration and respect for him. He doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth whether it be on Fox News or a speech given for some function he was asked to speak at. Consequently that is what axed his show.

He pandered plenty to some of the guests he had on. Or did you forget those? I forgave him, because I figured that he had to do that to have a show. He also announced people as "freedom fighters" that absolutely were not. Was that compromising principles?

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
~George Orwell

The Judge is a true patriot to liberty!

Again let me reiterate, your hatred of Alex Jones blinds you. Judge Napolitano has been on Alex's show a few times as well. Too bad you missed those great interviews.

Well, I really don't like opportunists, at best, or government employees paid to trick us, at worst. I probably listened to him for many more years than you have. Enough things happened that it became apparent to me that he was either a complete sellout or a government employee. If you weren't blinded by your adulation for him, I think you would see it too.

Note: One thing we can agree about is that Larry MacDonald was a great man. So very well spoken and man, could he explain things so that anyone could understand.

 

[William R]

Pat Buchanan is no champion of liberty, in fact I think he is just another bumbling talking head. Rand Paul is definitely a neoconservative now, he has embraced the very party that ruined America.

You're a third rate hack. Once again Rand shows why he's a much better politician than his father. Rand wants to run for President in either 2016 or 2020. If wants to get the Republican nomination then he has to build bridges. The all or nothing Lew Rockwellians will always be on the outside and never advance the cause of freedom.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are really twisting terms here, hb. If far left is total government control and far right is anarchy, then yes, Trotskyites are far left and classical liberalism is to the right of center. The Founders, that we most like in this movement, were classical liberals and they most certainly were not for big government.

In the contemporary American idiom, yes. It's kind of a game of semantics. I just prefer to use terms as they were originally were used. Classical liberalism is really too radical to be "right"-which is why Misesian and other classical liberal thought is typically rejected by the modern "right". (to this day "liberal" is commonly used in Europe to desecribe what we typically call "libertarian" here) If it makes sense to you to think of it that way, so be it. If we can agree generally on the ideas, that's really enough.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

An interesting comparison. IIRC, Buchanan went a little further than endorsing Bush Sr. in 1992, and was encouraged by GWB to give a somewhat venomous speech at the GOP convention, which pretty much ended Buchanan's GOP aspirations. Was Buchanan foolled into cutting his own neck in the name of Party unity?

A lesson that should not be forgotten in today's environment.

Has the groundwork been laid in 2012? Obama and leftists are demonizing "libertarians". All of a sudden there is a rumbling that Romney is "libertarian". Will Ron or Rand be encouraged to give a speech that will allow them to take the fall and the blame, marginalizing "libertarianism" for another decade as a cruel and perhaps more importantly, a losing philosophy? Quite a dilemma.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Has the groundwork been laid in 2012? Obama and leftists are demonizing "libertarians". All of a sudden there is a rumbling that Romney is "libertarian". Will Ron or Rand be encouraged to give a speech that will allow them to take the fall and the blame, marginalizing "libertarianism" for another decade as a cruel and perhaps more importantly, a losing philosophy? Quite a dilemma.

Someone will have to take the fall for the "evil social Darwinists". Who will it be?