Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell tear into Rand

[PierzStyx]

Ron tried 3 times and spent millions of our dollars and didn't win a damned state. Rand tried something different and whether it works or not is yet to be seen.
If it wasn't for Ron trying to cover and hide out from racist Lew's newsletter articles Ron would have won Iowa.

I sincerely doubt it. Iowa is a perfect example of what it means to be "conservative"- they mouth words about small government and faith but are fully in bed with unions and anything threatening union power is immediately a problem. There is a reason Frothy won Iowa last time. It is not libertarian.

 

[PierzStyx]

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/

Lew and Tom are both ideological purists. They supported Rand when he ran for Senate because he sounded much more libertarian. Since his move to the center to get elected, i.e. since endorsing Mitt Romney and the general conservative crowd, Tom and Lew have developed issues with Rand. And those issues are valid, they make very good points about his compromises to get ahead. Whether there enough is up to you.

Me? I don't think Rand is evil like I think Lindsay Graham is evil. But Rand is not his father either. I love Ron Paul exactly because in his record and in his speeches he remained uncompromising and upheld morals and values I believe to be absolutely necessary. Rand hasn't. A lot of people argue that Rand has to compromise somewhere to be elected. And I agree with that argument. But the very fact that he has compromised makes me question what else he would compromise with more power in his hands and makes me distrustful of him. This is doubly so if you believe the line that he is tricking the conservatives by adopting their rhetoric but is secretly libertarian argument. Anyone who could lie to the whole country could be lying to you too. Perhaps it isn't the conservatives who Rand Paul is suckering. It is all enough to make me question him, even when he says the right thing at the right time. He is very much like Abraham Lincoln in that way, who said all the right things about human liberty and freedom while simultaneously waging a war of attrition against his own people to force them to obey his will.

So no, I am no Rand Paul fan. I don't hate him, I don't despise him. But I certainly don't trust him.

 

[Badger Paul]

If I "abandoned" Rand I wouldn't be here now would I? Or be looking out for grassroots volunteers who actually want a President, not line the pockets of grifters who are just looking to cash in on Ron Paul Inc. They've already heard the "message". Now they need and want to see it advance.

 

[Krugminator2]

I love Ron Paul exactly because in his record and in his speeches he remained uncompromising and upheld morals and values I believe to be absolutely necessary. Rand hasn't. A lot of people argue that Rand has to compromise somewhere to be elected.

So no, I am no Rand Paul fan. I don't hate him, I don't despise him. But I certainly don't trust him.

Here is the problem with you making that argument. I would come right back and say Ron is hardly an ideal libertarian on trade, immigration, gay marriage, the role of the judiciary, abortion, and has a record of endorsement far worse than endorsing Mitt Romney. And those are just issues where he deviates from libertarian orthodoxy. There are numerous issues like monetary policy where his views are in conflict with the way world works.

And I would go so far as to say Ron Paul made some of those deviations out of political expediency to get elected in a place like Texas. I don't hold that against Ron just like I don't hold Rand's deviations against him. Getting elected is hard. They did the heavy lifting. I did very little. But it is ridiculous the way Ron Paul is held up as a Saint and Rand Paul is treated as a comprising squish. Frankly I don't consider Ron any more moral or Saintly than a number of people in Washington.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If I "abandoned" Rand I wouldn't be here now would I?

Being here is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for supporting Rand.

We have Bernie shills here, and Trump shills, and all kinds of rascals.

...and obviously many bone fide libertarians and Randites don't post here.

The minimum required to be a Rand supporter, seems to me, is, you know, to not spend every waking hour violently attacking him, you know?



I don't have a problem with libertarians who dislike Rand for some (incomprehensible) reason and refuse to support him.

....well, actually I do, but not enough to go out of my way to criticize them.

But I have a massive fucking problem with libertarians (alleged) who go out of their way to attack Rand.

Totally unacceptable, explicable only by malice or criminal levels of stupidity.

We are such underdogs already, resistance from behind is just....incredible.

 

[klamath]

I sincerely doubt it. Iowa is a perfect example of what it means to be "conservative"- they mouth words about small government and faith but are fully in bed with unions and anything threatening union power is immediately a problem. There is a reason Frothy won Iowa last time. It is not libertarian.

Ron surged to the lead in Iowa, then he got angry over being questioned about the newsletters and walked out of an interview. The main news cycle was ALL about that angry response for 3 or 4 days. Ron's poll numbers flat topped and started down. This was before the poll about Santorum surging came out.
Here is just one of the dozen and dozens of written stories about it not counting tv news.
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-storms-off-cnn-set-questioning-over-061843698.html

 

[Krugminator2]

I just visited Lew's site which is one step away from viewing child porn.

This guy is such a shit for brains idiot

. "Trading Ron for Mitch." https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/rands-mistake/

"High-Energy Trump" https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trumps-1-hour-press-conference/

"The Trump of Kentucky" https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trump-kentucky/

"The infamous neocon pac" https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/club-bankster-growth/ He thinks the Club for Growth, a group that deals exclusively with economic issues, are neocons. They take no foreign policy stances. But they are "infamous neocons" in his insane world.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^in a just world, he and Bill O'Reilly would be compelled to fight to the death in the arena

...and the winner would then be executed anyway, because, well, who needs either of them?

 

[Badger Paul]

"But I have a massive fucking problem with libertarians (alleged) who go out of their way to attack Rand."

I have been complimentary of Rand when I believe he deserves it and I have been critical of him when I feel he deserves it. I am no different than anyone else.

Unlike you, I am a man and not a jellyfish. And since this is not a dictatorship, I am exercising my right of free speech to venture my opinion. That's all it is. If you can handle it, that's your problem, not mine. I'm not here to participate in mind meld or be a part of the Borg when it comes to Rand Paul.

All I'm asking is a for a little more effort and passion on his part for not only what he believes in, but for what he inherited and what created him. And perhaps even some of the politics of joy if possible, that wouldn't him either given how high his negatives are. That's hardly being a money-grubber.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

"But I have a massive fucking problem with libertarians (alleged) who go out of their way to attack Rand."

I have been complimentary of Rand when I believe he deserves it and I have been critical of him when I feel he deserves it. I am no different than anyone else.

Actually, you are. You're special. A cursory glance at your posting history demonstrates that you've been attacking Rand for months.

Unlike you, I am a man and not a jellyfish.

You are a nihilist, but not an amusing one; you're one of those worthless shits in The Big Lebowski...

And since this is not a dictatorship, I am exercising my right of free speech to venture my opinion.

More the pity..

..in any event you're exercising your rights stupidly.

That's all it is. If you can handle it, that's your problem, not mine. I'm not here to participate in mind meld or be a part of the Borg when it comes to Rand Paul.

Yes, like that; moronic.

All I'm asking is a for a little more effort and passion on his part for not only what he believes in, but for what he inherited and what created him. And perhaps even some of the politics of joy if possible, that wouldn't him either given how high his negatives are. That's hardly being a money-grubber.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I just visited Lew's site which is one step away from viewing child porn.

This guy is such a shit for brains idiot

. "Trading Ron for Mitch." https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/rands-mistake/

"High-Energy Trump" https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trumps-1-hour-press-conference/

"The Trump of Kentucky" https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trump-kentucky/

"The infamous neocon pac" https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/club-bankster-growth/ He thinks the Club for Growth, a group that deals exclusively with economic issues, are neocons. They take no foreign policy stances. But they are "infamous neocons" in his insane world.

You know if Libertarian icons like Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are ditching Rand for Trump, maybe there's something to it? These guys are hard core Ron supporters, standing shoulder to shoulder with him. They are the bedrock of the liberty movement

 

[klamath]

And people are stating their utter disgust at the pathetic Lew and Tom. If people think Rand has lost support and followers those two are pathetic losers have lost far more.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You know if Libertarian icons like Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are ditching Rand for Trump, maybe there's something to it?

Yea, it means it's time to start ditching "libertarian icons" Lew and Tom.

...who are mediocre intellects anyways, sucking at Mises' and Rothbard's tit: mere commentators (silver age, no original work), and they've even fucked that up.

These guys are hard core Ron supporters, standing shoulder to shoulder with him. They are the bedrock of the liberty movement

They were never ever the "bedrock of the liberty movement."

At one time, in '08 and '12 they were part of the liberty movement; this is obviously no longer the case.

They've moved onto stupider pastures, where the irrelevant frolic with the retarded.

 

[fcreature]

And people are stating their utter disgust at the pathetic Lew and Tom. If people think Rand has lost support and followers those two are pathetic losers have lost far more.

There is a reason libertarian ideas aren't more mainstream and it's not because of the message. It has a lot to do with the so called "bedrock of the liberty movement" personalities.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There is a reason libertarian ideas aren't more mainstream and it's not because of the message. It has a lot to do with the so called "bedrock of the liberty movement" personalities.

Quite right

 

[PierzStyx]

Here is the problem with you making that argument. I would come right back and say Ron is hardly an ideal libertarian on trade, immigration, gay marriage, the role of the judiciary, abortion, and has a record of endorsement far worse than endorsing Mitt Romney. And those are just issues where he deviates from libertarian orthodoxy. There are numerous issues like monetary policy where his views are in conflict with the way world works.

And I would go so far as to say Ron Paul made some of those deviations out of political expediency to get elected in a place like Texas. I don't hold that against Ron just like I don't hold Rand's deviations against him. Getting elected is hard. They did the heavy lifting. I did very little. But it is ridiculous the way Ron Paul is held up as a Saint and Rand Paul is treated as a comprising squish. Frankly I don't consider Ron any more moral or Saintly than a number of people in Washington.

Ron is very libertarian on abortion. Anyone who thinks it is okay to murder babies for any reason isn't keeping with any form of libertarianism or the NAP. Babies have a right to Life, same as anyone else.

Ron is against strong immigration barriers, against building a wall, and against a federally mandated and militarized "Constitution-free" immigration border. All of which are soundly libertarian.

On gay marriage, Ron wants to remove the federal government from being able to legislate the issue altogether, because he believes that not only is that a power constitutionally reserved to the states but because smaller groups will always handle issues better than larger national groups. That is pretty libertarian as well. Those who think the federal government should be granting gay marriages are not taking a very libertarian stance on the issue, demanding centralized government regulate private lives.

And you're going to have to be more clear about what Ron's "judiciary" issues are. If you mean his opposition to the "justice" system" supporting government power grabs then you're wrong. Ron is solidly libertarian there.

Not only does his monetary policy fit "libertarian orthodoxy" but his support for commodity money not controlled by a central manipulatory agency not only is very libertarian and very effective, but it better realizes the way the world works than the fiat paper system we have forced on us not that further enriches the powerful while increasingly impoverishing the poor.

 

[PierzStyx]

You know if Libertarian icons like Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are ditching Rand for Trump, maybe there's something to it? These guys are hard core Ron supporters, standing shoulder to shoulder with him. They are the bedrock of the liberty movement

They aren't. But they do point out that part of Trump's appeal is that he is always full of energy and doesn't back down from his positions, no matter how controversial. Thus he stands out and draws media attention and supporters. That is something Rand could learn from.

 

[PierzStyx]

Ron surged to the lead in Iowa, then he got angry over being questioned about the newsletters and walked out of an interview. The main news cycle was ALL about that angry response for 3 or 4 days. Ron's poll numbers flat topped and started down. This was before the poll about Santorum surging came out.
Here is just one of the dozen and dozens of written stories about it not counting tv news.
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-storms-off-cnn-set-questioning-over-061843698.html

I remember. I saw it all happen. Ron blipped and then fell back. Nothing more. To have a surge it has to be sustained over a period of time, which is not what happened with Ron.

 

[PierzStyx]

Being here is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for supporting Rand.

We have Bernie shills here, and Trump shills, and all kinds of rascals.

...and obviously many bone fide libertarians and Randites don't post here.

The minimum required to be a Rand supporter, seems to me, is, you know, to not spend every waking hour violently attacking him, you know?



I don't have a problem with libertarians who dislike Rand for some (incomprehensible) reason and refuse to support him.

....well, actually I do, but not enough to go out of my way to criticize them.

But I have a massive fucking problem with libertarians (alleged) who go out of their way to attack Rand.

Totally unacceptable, explicable only by malice or criminal levels of stupidity.

We are such underdogs already, resistance from behind is just....incredible.

I'm not sure you understand what it means to be libertarian if you have a problem with people standing by their convictions. The more hatred I see spewed from your posts the more trouble I'm having seeing the difference between you and any other collectivist who has a fit and wants to make everyone think and act like they do.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not sure you understand what it means to be libertarian if you have a problem with people standing by their convictions. The more hatred I see spewed from your posts the more trouble I'm having seeing the difference between you and any other collectivist who has a fit and wants to make everyone think and act like they do.

Yea, totally, I mean, like, what kind of a libertarian would want to get libertarians elected? Or be annoyed at fellow libertarians who are working against that goal?

Clearly, I must be a communist or sumpin...