Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell tear into Rand

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

Jack Kennedy's name is on Profiles in Courage and Barry Goldwater's is on Conscience of a Conservative . Neither man wrote their own books. Sorry to disappoint you and shatter your innocence.

Your "evidence" is as clear as the ghosts who wrote for the newsletter.
 
Badger Paul said:
"Ron Paul's name is on the newsletters. That is evidence that he wrote them."

Jack Kennedy's name is on Profiles in Courage and Barry Goldwater's is on Conscience of a Conservative . Neither man wrote their own books. Sorry to disappoint you and shatter your innocence.

Your "evidence" is as clear as the ghosts who wrote for the newsletter.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that the evidence was conclusive, or even that it was persuasive. He merely said that there was more of it.
 
Occam's Banana said:
He didn't say that the evidence was conclusive, or even that it was persuasive. He merely said that there was more of it.
Click to expand...

Hey, give 'em a break, they obviously are adept at reading way beyond what people are actually saying, given their comprehension of what's on Rand's campaign site.
 
The author of at least one of the newsletter articles in question, and quite likely all of them, appears to be James B. Powell. That is what the best evidence suggests.
 
I can not wait personally to see the day when the GOP gets defeated again. They need a re brand in order for people like Rand to have a chance.
 
"The author of at least one of the newsletter articles in question, and quite likely all of them, appears to be James B. Powell. That is what the best evidence suggests. "

Really? I thought (and some others had said) Fred Reed.

In the days before the internet these newsletters were one of the few ways for libertarian writers to be published.
 
There is nothing conclusive, except for one of the articles actually has a byline, and that byline is James B. Powell. It could be the rest were written by someone else, or a variety of someone elses.

Doesn't concern me at all. I've written far more racist things the last couple months on RPF. But even back when I was more of an anti-racist, the newsletter excerpts I read never seemed all that bad to me. "Young black men are incredibly swift of foot" or something like that. Well... yeah! Duh! Watch the NBA or NFL sometime!
 
Speculation: Rockwell despises Rand for courting and publicly defending the Koch brothers.
 
Lew denies he wrote them either but he was the editor and thus shares responsibility for damage they caused Dr. Paul during the campaign. Maybe at the time the persons writing them thought they were benign but a lot has changed since the early 1990s.

"Rockwell despises Rand for courting and publicly defending the Koch brothers. "

As well he should, the Kochs are scum.
 
Regardless what Woods and Rockwell say about Rand, the *rest* of their commentary on the latest GOP debate is spot on and worth hearing. I disagree with some of what they say about Rand. No one seems to appreciate that he, like his father, doesn't *want* to be president but is running in hope of salvaging something of this country. It will be much harder to do that, now, that it was in '12 or even '08. Rand doesn't care for the fanfare and glory, and neither did Ron. This is an important similarity that few people mention. I applaud Rand's courage and I think he's doing a bang-up job of campaigning and also being present for his "day job".
 
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...

Well, in a way Rand tricked us. In 2010 he compaigned as the anti-establishment candidate. Take down' the washington machine etc. And now he's one of the biggest establishment suck ups on the stage.
 
brandon said:
Well, in a way Rand tricked us. In 2010 he compaigned as the anti-establishment candidate. Take down' the washington machine etc. And now he's one of the biggest establishment suck ups on the stage.
Click to expand...

Why, beceause he endorsed McConnell? :toady:

Get a clue.

fisharmor said:
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.
Click to expand...

And Lew Rockwell was at the very least the editor, meaning he certainly had an involvement in their writing whereas all we can say about Paul is that his name was used to distribute them.

fisharmor said:
So as I said, there is actually more evidence that Ron wrote them than there is evidence that Rockwell wrote them.
Click to expand...
That is a lie that can easily be debunked with 5 minutes of googling.

Fact is Rockwell has been riding Ron Paul's coattails since at least 1978. How Ron remains on good terms with this man while watching him continuously disparage his son is beyond me. I do like Tom Woods but honestly at this point it seems like he's going the route of Rockwell, building an audience through the Paul family and then peddling his garbage affiliate offers at every opportunity. He's looking awfully opportunistic these days.

The "liberty movement" has always seems just as destructive to itself as any other outside forces. Many of these people would rather watch Rome burn. The same goes for many of the people on this forum. And this is precisely why we'll never win anything. Half of you fantasize about the fall of our society, while we all know that you'll actually be hiding in your basements if/when it ever happens.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Well, in a way Rand tricked us. In 2010 he compaigned as the anti-establishment candidate. Take down' the washington machine etc. And now he's one of the biggest establishment suck ups on the stage.
Click to expand...

He is likely the best Senator in the history of the country. That doesn't mean he couldn't be much better. He is far from ideal both in style and substance. But it does mean there hasn't been someone better to date. If you think he has been anything other than outstanding, your goal is not the same as mine. Your goal is not liberty.

The goal is not to appeal to the most nihilistic idiots on the internet. The goal is to present libertarian ideas and go about implementing them in the most practical manner.
 
Last edited:
Krugminator2 said:
He is likely the best Senator in the history of the country. That doesn't mean he couldn't be much better. He is far from ideal both in style and substance. But it does mean there hasn't been someone better to date. If you think he has been anything other than outstanding, your goal is not the same as mine. Your goal is not liberty.

The goal is not to appeal to the most nihilistic idiots on the internet. The goal is to present libertarian ideas and go about implementing them in the most practical manner.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Imagine if we had 100 Rands in the senate instead of just 1.
 
brandon said:
Well, in a way Rand tricked us. In 2010 he compaigned as the anti-establishment candidate. Take down' the washington machine etc. And now he's one of the biggest establishment suck ups on the stage.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. Why do you say it?
 
" No one seems to appreciate that he, like his father, doesn't *want* to be president but is running in hope of salvaging something of this country."

Oh, so now it's back to being a "message" campaign? Wonderful! Since I donated to Rand with the belief he actually, really wanted to President instead of being a prophet, I'm going to ask for a refund. Because the nice thing about being a prophet is, it doesn't cost anything.

Instead of Rand Paul for President in 2016 the campaign should be re-titled "Rand Paul Traveling Salvation Show 2016". Got to have a little truth in advertising don't you know?
 
The over-arching theme here is that they're pissed off that Rand is getting put in the same sentence as Ron, which to me is super petty. Tom Woods has Ron Paul's image plastered all over his site, so what a fucking hypocrite. Lew just comes off as a pompous douche.
 
You know, nobody in this thread who is taking exception to what they said is even bothering to address the material.
You're all indistinct from people who spout "they hate us for our freedoms" when we have a long and incredibly detailed record of certain Muslims' material grievances with us which doesn't include that statement.

You want to know what they think? They're both very eloquent speakers and neither is prone to bullshitting.
I know you've all given up on the idea that there might be people in this world who say what they mean and mean what they say, but just try it for once. Listen to what they're actually saying, and ignore what you want to hear, and you'll find out exactly what they're thinking.

I say this knowing fully that one of you is going to respond to me and fail to understand what I've written. I look forward to quoting your text, so go ahead.
 
Wow - its been years since we've had a "who wrote the newsletters!" discussion! Good times!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top