Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell tear into Rand

robskicks said:
I've been listening to Tom's podcast a lot lately so was pretty surprised when they just went after Rand. A lot of it seemed really personal.

Anybody know if this is the first time or have they always hated Rand?
Click to expand...

They called Rand a "loser" in the context of who gained or lost points on the Drudge poll. That's not "tearing into" Rand: it's making a statement of fact.

They called Rand out on endorsing Ted Cruz when there was a Ron Paul style candidate in Cruz' senate race. Again, a statement of fact.

They said that he's been running away from libertarianism (true), that his answers were impenetrable (don't know, didn't watch it, but it's true for the two of them), and criticized Rand for not taking a position on taxes which would be more similar to Ron's.

They pointed out that Ted Cruz was the one candidate who mentioned Ron Paul positively, and they pointed out that Rand got upset that his father was getting praise from someone else. (Perhaps Cruz should have endorsed the establishment candidate... that might have made Rand happy.)

Woods mentioned that Rand inspires zero enthusiasm (true). Ok, he's laying into him now... based on the fact that he's participating in a spectacle.

Woods and Rockwell both started the podcast by saying that they would rather that the spectacle didn't exist at all, but as long as it does exist they can't tear their eyes away.
Well, Rand made it clear from the beginning that he was going to be taking part in that spectacle. Plenty of people on this site (as recently as in this thread) have stated repeatedly that taking part in the spectacle is the only way to get elected.

So when Rand fails to play the spectacle game properly, suck it up, people. If that's what everyone thinks is going to "win", then you guys need to face facts and find someone else to back who is actually good at being a spectacle. Rand is exactly as good at it as Ron was, and lacks Ron's philosophical consistency.
 
Suzanimal said:
People aren't going to vote for liberty unless they understand it - Rockwell and Woods have done a great job educating people via their websites and Mises.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. See below:


bxm042 said:
Have you never attended one of Collins' training programs? You don't need people to understand something to vote for it, you just need to target, identify, and mobilize voters.

It's really quite simple! Just ask Collins, he can give you dates & times for when this course is available. I believe the fee is only around $300
Click to expand...
Actually here is the link, and the class is only $30: https://www.faclevents.org/index.php?option=com_vikevents
 
Woods was involved you arsehole and you and the claque didn't want him to be. Why should he waste his him time again?

Your campaign pal and if it goes down, you sink with the ship.
 
Familiarity breeds contempt. They are critical, and some of those criticisms are valid. But it shows that they have given up. One way to guarantee a loss is to give up too early. Elections are dynamic. Front runners change. And more than anything, there hasn't been any actual elections yet. A sports team doesn't give up until they are mathematically eliminated. Giving up during the preseason is a bit premature.

Of course they are focused on Rand because they do believe he has the best positions of any of the candidates. But when the discussion is about criticism, maybe it's best to focus some equal time on the other candidates. There's still a lot of them out there. ;)

The glass is half full. Don't dump it out yet, cause some of us will drink it! And if it's Franzia, Suz will kill you if you pour it out.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Familiarity breeds contempt. They are critical, and some of those criticisms are valid. But it shows that they have given up. One way to guarantee a loss is to give up too early. Elections are dynamic. Front runners change. And more than anything, there hasn't been any actual elections yet. A sports team doesn't give up until they are mathematically eliminated. Giving up during the preseason is a bit premature.

Of course they are focused on Rand because they do believe he has the best positions of any of the candidates. But when the discussion is about criticism, maybe it's best to focus some equal time on the other candidates. There's still a lot of them out there. ;)

The glass is half full. Don't dump it out yet, cause some of us will drink it! And if it's Franzia, Suz will kill you if you pour it out.
Click to expand...

It's alcohol abuse! :mad:
 
robskicks said:
I've been listening to Tom's podcast a lot lately so was pretty surprised when they just went after Rand. A lot of it seemed really personal.

Anybody know if this is the first time or have they always hated Rand?


http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-522-lew-rockwell-and-tom-dissect-the-third-gop-debate-2015/
Click to expand...

He's been hating on Rand for months, and it does sound very personal. If Rand wasn't a Paul, he would think he's great. His expectations were just so high for him to be his father I think. He sounds so bitter.
 
Last edited:
Haha. Listening to it now.

I am by far more "pure" than Lew and Tom, but this is just two (obviously bitter) kids cackling amongst themselves. Nothing but contempt for them.
 
staerker said:
Haha. Listening to it now.

I am by far more "pure" than Lew and Tom, but this is just two (obviously bitter) kids cackling amongst themselves. Nothing but contempt for them.
Click to expand...

You're more anarchist than even Tom?

Is that like, scoring 11/10 on the Molotov cocktail meter?
 
Brandywine said:
He's been hating on Rand for months, and it does sound very personal. If Rand wasn't a Paul, he would think he's great. His expectations were just so high for him to be his father I think. He sounds so bitter.
Click to expand...

Yup. Lew has been bashing Rand on Facebook for months. It's been disgusting.
 
Not sure why the Paul family hasn't ditched Rockwell yet. He's been nothing but destructive to our making any political progress. From authoring those "racist newsletters" and leaving Ron high and dry, to bashing his son non stop... not sure why they keep associating with him.
 
fcreature said:
Not sure why the Paul family hasn't ditched Rockwell yet. He's been nothing but destructive to our making any political progress. From authoring those "racist newsletters" and leaving Ron high and dry, to bashing his son non stop... not sure why they keep associating with him.
Click to expand...

Except there's actually more evidence that Ron Paul wrote those newsletters, than there is evidence that Lew Rockwell wrote them.
 
fisharmor said:
Except there's actually more evidence that Ron Paul wrote those newsletters, than there is evidence that Lew Rockwell wrote them.
Click to expand...

Really? So you're saying Ron Paul is a liar? Are you also going to try to tell me that he hasn't been bashing Rand?

They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that’s too confusing. “It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”
Click to expand...

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/ron-pauls-old-newsletters-come-into-focus/
 
Last edited:
"Except there's actually more evidence that Ron Paul wrote those newsletters, than there is evidence that Lew Rockwell wrote them. "

And that evidence is what exactly given that Ron denied it?
 
Badger Paul said:
"Except there's actually more evidence that Ron Paul wrote those newsletters, than there is evidence that Lew Rockwell wrote them. "

And that evidence is what exactly given that Ron denied it?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul's name is on the newsletters.
That is evidence that he wrote them.

As opposed to what you guys have on Lew Rockwell, which is jack shit.
So as I said, there is actually more evidence that Ron wrote them than there is evidence that Rockwell wrote them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top