Rand Paul: yes or no? Tom Woods show.

[Corto_Maltese]

There was a very intresing debate on the Tom Woods show about yes or no on supporting Rand. Walter Block said we should all support Rand despite all his faults from the libertarian point of view, but Scott Horton argued against it. Maybe not the best debate conditions, specially when you know how critical Tom as the moderator is to Rand, but still something that is very discussed in Ron Paul circles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU6kTTsu8Gw

 

[Rad]

I love the Scott Horton Show. I have learned so much from it. He is the best radio host ever! http://scotthorton.org/

 

[specsaregood]

Such Libertarians will deserve to end up in fema camps.

 

[SilentBull]

While the purists continue trying to find the impossible way to get 100% of everything they want NOW, the marxists continue to lead us into full blown totalitarianism 5% at a time.

 

[Rad]

I feel the same as Scott (video starts where he lays it down): https://youtu.be/kU6kTTsu8Gw?t=7m

 

[Rad]

Walter Block voted for Obama over McCain because he thought he was the lesser evil: https://youtu.be/kU6kTTsu8Gw?t=11m31s

Block said, "foreign policy is very important because it determines domestic policy!" *nods head vigorously*

He said Rothbard voted for LBJ over Goldwater...

 

[Corto_Maltese]

I feel the same as Scott (video starts where he lays it down): https://youtu.be/kU6kTTsu8Gw?t=7m

Yea, the part about us hoping there is a secret Ron Paul in there is the best. I didnt know avout scott horton until recently listening to Tom Woods podcast. I agree with you that he is great. They talked like a month ago about the Iran deal and Rands response to it. That made me like Horton imidietly. Link if anyone is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK8VdBfwpdc

 

[Rad]

Thanks for the link. I don't understand why doesn't Rand get out the 28 pages and say look we are allies with the people who are funding the rebels/terrorist. He could use the truth on his enemies, showing the terror war is a sham to enrich the war profiteers, and it has nothing to do with those who fund terror. He can say yes Iran is bad but we have no evidence that they are building a nuke and we are watching them. If they break out we can turn them into dust. He can act tough and still support the deal. He is basically Republican-lite who supports civil liberties but as Walter Block pointed out foreign policy determines domestic policy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hmmm. I'm in the awkward position of agreeing with both of them (and Tom).

 

[specsaregood]

He can act tough and still support the deal.

Cuz he knows its a bad deal to support. I love libertarians acting like Obama is some type of peace monger all of a sudden.

 

[fisharmor]

While the purists continue to find the impossible way to get 100% of everything they want NOW, the marxists continue to lead us into full blown totalitarianism 5% at a time.

That is quite simply because the Marxists are pushing for 100% of their agenda and getting 5% at a time. They know full well that those 1% or 5% victories add up over time. They also know full well that you don't even get that 1% or 5% unless you push for the 100%.

You do not go in to a negotiation asking for 5%. You go into a negotiation asking for 700% of what you want. If you go into a negotiation already compromised, then you end up getting significantly less than what you wanted, and often less than what you need. This is because that is what a negotiation is: it is giving up things you want.

This is all very basic and I'm astonished it hasn't been learned here. Well, maybe not astonished, since backing down from a fight before the jackets are even off is the MO of so many "conservative" groups (the NRA springs immediately to mind).

If it seems like anyone here isn't crazy about Rand it might be because he's already dropped the opening bid down to 15% before negotiation even started. Or it might be because nobody has any evidence that his 15% he's opening with is actually NOT his pie-in-the-sky opening bid which he expects to back down from.

 

[Krugminator2]

I love the Scott Horton Show. I have learned so much from it.

Never would have guessed.

You are the perfect representation of the "libertarian" world where Rand Paul and Barry Goldwater are the enemy. And where Lincoln Chafee, Barack Obama, and LBJ are the preferred choices to the warmongering fake libertarians who are "ruining the brand."

 

[Rad]

Never would have guessed.

You are the perfect representation of the "libertarian" world where Rand Paul and Barry Goldwater are the enemy. And where Lincoln Chafee, Barack Obama, and LBJ are the preferred choices to the warmongering fake libertarians who are "ruining the brand."

War is the health of the state. You gotta protect that state huh XD

I thought Obama would be up in Iran. I was wrong but how could I tell by "keep all the options on the table" like all the other losers who said it? I had several arguments with an Obama supporter over this. How Obama was a liar on Iran and an Israeli sock puppet.

Block's point is to vote for the lesser evil. Rothbard screwed up with LBJ obviously. Block could have easily ended up with a guy who pursued boots on the ground regime change in Iran. But lets all drop the antiwar part of libertarianism and let Dondero Libertarianism reign supreme.

 

[Rad]

Cuz he knows its a bad deal to support. I love libertarians acting like Obama is some type of peace monger all of a sudden.

Obama isn't a peace monger but he is better than Rand on Iran. How is it a bad deal? Iran agrees to inspections to prevent them from getting a bomb they don't want. Israeli and American intelligence says Iran isn't pursuing a bomb. Rand can be all tough and say there would be serious consequences if Iran broke out for a bomb. Why do we need another war based on a false premise like Iraq 2003? There isn't nothing conservative or libertarian about a costly war of choice.

 

[William Tell]

Walter Block is a terrible representative for Rand supporters. Most of us would never think of voting for someone like Obama as Block has done, so his lesser evil arguments don't represent us.

 

[specsaregood]

Obama isn't a peace monger but he is better than Rand on Iran. How is it a bad deal? Iran agrees to inspections to prevent them from getting a bomb they don't want. Israeli and American intelligence says Iran isn't pursuing a bomb. Rand can be all tough and say there would be serious consequences if Iran broke out for a bomb. Why do we need another war based on a false premise like Iraq 2003? There isn't nothing conservative or libertarian about a costly war of choice.

Cuz inspections kept us out of war with Iraq didn't it? What you describe is the exact setup used to go into Iraq.

I think Randal knows that this whole deal is just a prelude to war and that the current policy and environment (status quo) is a better deterrent to war.

 

[Chieppa1]

Wait, are there people who don't like Scott Horton?

 

[Rad]

Cuz inspections kept us out of war with Iraq didn't it? What you describe is the exact setup used to go into Iraq.

I think Randal knows that this whole deal is just a prelude to war and that the current policy and environment (status quo) is a better deterrent to war.

He doesn't play it like that. He is still lying about the peaceful Iranian nuclear program (as far as American and Israeli intelligence knows). He is with all of the other Bibi yes men on this issue who want to keep the issue hanging until they get their regime change.

 

[specsaregood]

He doesn't play it like that. He is still lying about the peaceful Iranian nuclear program (as far as American and Israeli intelligence knows). He is with all of the other Bibi yes men on this issue who want to keep the issue hanging until they get their regime change.

I can read between the lines. Obama has a history of being a warmonger and wants this deal; Randal has spent his entire time in the Senate fighting to prevent wars and is against this deal. So who should we trust? Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Rad]

I can read between the lines. Obama has a history of being a warmonger and wants this deal; Randal has spent his entire time in the Senate fighting to prevent wars and is against this deal. So who should we trust? Seems pretty obvious to me.

They both were first time senators running for president with hardly any of a record. Remember this Obama? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RQvKQGzcoc

Push came to shove he screwed us on the FISA bill. Rand is doing the same with the Iran deal. He wanted negotiations and he got them. He wants to hold out for a better deal but that isn't going to happen. He is playing the game with dollars and lives for political ambitions. I'm waiting for a better deal from him and that also isn't going to happen. I know he is going to bomb ISIS and give the kurds a state.. whatever is politically expedient in his quest to become just another republican:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...e-isis-and-radical-islam-give-them-kurdistan/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-i-still-have-exactly-same-policy_804703.html (neocons are onto him)

ISIS can't really do anything to us. Iran can have its revenge on us according to Michael Scheuer: https://youtu.be/v1ex2HnovN4?t=8m17s

They have capability in North America he says...