To Muffinburg: I didn't know "trolling" was such a loaded term and, while I realize it is messing with people to get them frustrated, I was using an alternate, less-bellicose definition that recommended flooding the comment section with a different, albeit respectful, point of view (akin to the times when we had Mises posters posting links to discussions on Hannity Forums). My bad.
At any rate, I'll reboot what I had I guess:
Thomas Woods on the War Powers Act
Mark Levin's Response
Thomas Woods' Response to Levin
Southern Avenger response to Levin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZFoFZsCAw8
Jack Hunter FTW
It's official. Levin's Facebook operator (who goes by the name "Katy Liberty") is blocking Woods fans left and right from commenting. My comments were deleted and blocked, and then I created a second Facebook profile to alert people on the Facebook page that comments were being censored. Predictably, it was only a matter of time before that got deleted and blocked as well. Assuming that this person is a) operating this Facebook page in the first place presumably with Levin's permission (if you visit Katy Liberty's profile, it is reminiscient of a trolling experiment) and/or b) censoring comments with the permission of Levin, it just goes to show you that Levin has the intellect and emotional maturity of an 8 year old.
Eric,
Don't troll other people's pages. It makes us look really really bad. Freedom is not won through ganging up on people who disagree with us, but by allowing people to come to us by their own free choice. This means you have to be as agreeable as possible. Starting fights is the opposite of that.
If you have a better argument than your opponent, then let the audience hear it. It's always about the audience.
It's not trolling, I was trying to have a discussion. I didn't start a fight at all, I came to Levin's page with the intent of discussing the War Powers topic and they shut me down. I spoke my piece, they didn't want to hear it apparently, and I won't be there anymore.
Calling for everyone to jump on someone's fan-page (which you have to Like before you can post) and start demanding answers is trolling. Creating another --fake-- account to continue to do so is extreme trolling.
You're not going to convince anyone with such a tactic. If you think you're on the side of reason, then be reasonable.
Mark Levin is a Lincoln idolater, a fan of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and believes that Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. He excoriates Leftists for being "statists" while while supporting the war on drugs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and prosecuting business owners for hiring "illegal" immigrants.
The Thomas Woods-Mark Levin debate, in my view, is the most interesting and still developing story on LRC.com.
Last Friday (March 25, 2011), Woods debunked the The Phony Arguments for Presidential War Powers. Levin criticized him. Woods issued him a challenge. Historian Thomas DiLorenzo commented on this back-and-forth. Levin dodged the challenge and then deleted many comments on his Facebook page about this debate. RedState.com gave lopsided coverage about it.
I fear if New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman debated economist Robert P. “Bob” Murphy, the debate would be similar to the Woods-Levin debate.
I want Woods to debate anarcho-capitalism with someone. I want to see him make a case for it, address the arguments against it, and then see opponents run out of arguments and start making stuff up. Then, thoughtful viewers, can wonder, ‘If he is obviously wrong, how come no one can give a reasonable counterargument?’
This incidence could discourage future debate with well-educated libertarians. Criticizing one’s opponents is easier when one does not have to directly respond to them, especially if they have hard-to-counter arguments.
1. People do that all the time. Regardless of the status of a fan page, all it does is take the role of a message board for people to have a conversation with each other. "Demanding" is a loaded word and too strong for what I was suggesting. There's nothing wrong with having a dialogue, unless you think liberals coming here to confront libertarians on issues that they disagree with are trolling. I mean, is being a libertarian a prerequisite for joining the forums on here? It's the flow of ideas.
2. It was not a fake account. I used "[My Name] Numero Dos" which is what it was called. I wasn't fooling anybody, I was upfront about who I was. And all I did is tell his fanboys that the self-proclaimed Great One was censoring comments, since that may be relevant information to those who think that may be signaling intellectual cowardice. No inflammatory rhetoric was used.
3. I am on the side of reason (hopefully) and you don't even know what content was contained in my comments nor how reasonable they may or may not have been.
Wow, Levin absolutely just blatantly lied on his show tonight. He literally said that, "you won't get taken down, unless there's cursing, etc." on his Facebook page if you wish to have a discussion.
I'm not one to accuse somebody of being a bold-faced liar often, but Levin is one now.
"Wow, Levin absolutely just blatantly lied on his show tonight. He literally said that, "you won't get taken down, unless there's cursing, etc." on his Facebook page if you wish to have a discussion."
who in the world listens to his show?
A lot of people do. I'm just checking it out to see if he mentions Thomas Woods. So far, he hasn't. He refers nebulously to "the libertarian ideologues" and doesn't mention Woods by name. He even used the example of Jefferson and the barbary pirates as evidence of a president bypassing Congress, but Woods mentioned that in one of his rebuttals. Just goes to show you that he is either a propagandist or he never bothered to read Woods (I lean to the latter though).
Oh you know what? I take that back. I guess I'm listening to Friday's episode. It's probably unfair to hold him accountable for things that hadn't happened yet
Levin also posted on his Facebook numerous links to Rockwell's site:
As you can see, this website attacks most conservatives - here Meese, Scalia, Thomas, and even the Koch brothers (who are actually libertarians) in a single post. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76465.html Here John Bolton is accused of being a neo-conservative. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31901.html Here they approvingly post a piece entitled Ronald Reagan, Warmonger. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html Here they are taking on drunk driving laws. http://twitter.com/TheKingDude/status/15781636364828672 Here's a pearl about Rush accompanied with someone's history lesson. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/graham-d1.1.1.html Here Tom Sowell is said not to live up to standard. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bothwell5.html This, after only 10 minutes of painfully going through that site. This is who Professor Thomas Woods is aligned with. It is a small cabal of kooks who promote a form of neo-anarchism claiming it as constitutional originalism. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
As you can see, this website attacks most conservatives - here Meese, Scalia, Thomas, and even the Koch brothers (who are actually libertarians) in a single post. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76465.html Here John Bolton is accused of being a neo-conservative. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31901.html Here they approvingly post a piece entitled Ronald Reagan, Warmonger. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html Here they are taking on drunk driving laws. http://twitter.com/TheKingDude/status/15781636364828672 Here's a pearl about Rush accompanied with someone's history lesson. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/graham-d1.1.1.html Here Tom Sowell is said not to live up to standard. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bothwell5.html This, after only 10 minutes of painfully going through that site.
This is who Professor Thomas Woods is aligned with. It is a small cabal of kooks who promote a form of neo-anarchism claiming it as constitutional originalism. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Why does it matter if some thug who says he is (your) president seeks approval from 400+ idiots who claim they are (your) representatives?
Would it matter to anybody here? Would it be less of a crime?
I honestly don't know why Woods and others at Rockwell are so engaged in these type of debates over what is or is not constitutional? They are only engaging in self contradictions when they reject the document (and the State) on one hand, but then argue over what is legitimate for the State and what is not.
I think it goes back to the "Gateway Drug" reasoning. Many an-caps view the Constitution as a libertarian document that attempted, in good-faith, to keep the government as limited as possible. I can't exactly fault the founders for not being anarchists, but I have to say, "bless 'em, they tried." Levin came to this conclusion on his Facebook page, thinking that these "kooks" believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as an anarchist document. That's not what the anarchists on LRC are saying though.
Eric080: At any rate, I'll reboot what I had I guess: Thomas Woods on the War Powers Act Mark Levin's Response Thomas Woods' Response to Levin
I noticed Tom actually had a blog post which responded to things Mark said specifically...and it was that post that Levin was responding to...you can view it here:
I had no idea Levin was so pathetic. Take a look at how it went down after Wood's challenge:
First, Mark starts off with a nice dose of attempted character assassination. And not even by attacking Tom directly, he simply goes on about the website Tom's challenge was published on and says "This is who Professor Thomas Woods is aligned with. It is a small cabal of kooks who promote a form of neo-anarchism claiming it as constitutional originalism. Wrong, wrong, wrong."
Wrong, wrong, wrong! By Mark Levin · Monday, March 28, 2011 (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150116622245946) As you can see, this website attacks most conservatives - here Meese, Scalia, Thomas, and even the Koch brothers (who are actually libertarians) in a single post. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76465.html Here John Bolton is accused of being a neo-conservative. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31901.html Here they ...
As you can see, this website attacks most conservatives - here Meese, Scalia, Thomas, and even the Koch brothers (who are actually libertarians) in a single post. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76465.html Here John Bolton is accused of being a neo-conservative. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31901.html Here they ...
Then he comes right back with a big helping of subject change, peppered with condescention and slanted ad hominem:
So much educating to do, so little time to do it. By Mark Levin · Monday, March 28, 2011 Why didn't the Framers explicitly require the president to seek approval from Congress before engaging in all acts of war, and enumerate such power in Congress? If they granted the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to only repel military acts against the nation without congressional authority, why did they not enumerate that? What of of...
Why didn't the Framers explicitly require the president to seek approval from Congress before engaging in all acts of war, and enumerate such power in Congress? If they granted the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to only repel military acts against the nation without congressional authority, why did they not enumerate that? What of of...
And Woods responds: How I Sent Mark Levin Home Crying
So what does our almighty Mark Levin do? Why, he attacks LewRockwell.com again, of course...because that has everything to do with the subject at hand.
Why am I wasting my time with these Rockwellian crackpots? (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150132190185946) By Mark Levin · Thursday, March 31, 2011 See this piece from the libertarian site Reason, which raises a number of interesting questions about these supposedly fellow libertarians http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter A sleazy bunch. Marx and Engels preached destroying the existing society, as does Barack Obama with his transformations, as apparently do th...
See this piece from the libertarian site Reason, which raises a number of interesting questions about these supposedly fellow libertarians http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
A sleazy bunch. Marx and Engels preached destroying the existing society, as does Barack Obama with his transformations, as apparently do th...
We also find he removes every mention of anything in favor of Woods from his facebook page. Real class act, that Mark Levin.
"I honestly don't know why Woods and others at Rockwell are so engaged in these type of debates over what is or is not constitutional? They are only engaging in self contradictions when they reject the document (and the State) on one hand, but then argue over what is legitimate for the State and what is not." - DD5
Beating the enemy on their own terms tends to win you more arguments. For example, if Woods merely stuck to anarchist arguments Levin's dismissal would carry more rhetorical weight. When Woods comes back and points out that Levin et al are being inconsistent even with the views they profess to hold, it shows they not only don't know what he's talking about, they don't know what they are talking about.
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/i-had-no-idea-how-right-i-was/#disqus_thread
read the comments by "ridin' dirty" and marvel at the surreal cognitive dissonance on display.
his persistance and neocon self-righteousness makes me desperately want to mount a refutation of his most recent posts since they smack of severe absurdity.
Why bother? All he did was bring up almost everything Tom already addressed as if he were bringing some novel new angle to the debate no one had thought of. Just appreciate the sound of his name and move on.
Mark Levin's schtick is the ad hominem.
We're just witnessing the difference between a debater (Woods) and an entertainer (Levin). People are easily entertained, but struggle when forced to deal with hard facts. And they get totally befuddled with hard facts from over 200 years ago.
Based on Levin's poor showing, I have to wonder what the success rate is over at the Landmark Legal Foundation.
A more interesting debate would be Woods supporting the Pro-Constitutionalists from the original intent of the founders versus one of the other brilliant scholars supporting the Anarcho-Capitalist position. But then I bet that Woods could provide arguments for both sides, and do much better than Levin did for his position.
Levin holds a strong central government position on crime, defense, and other functions he feels are represented in the Constitution (notice I said "feels" as opposed to "proves"). The anarchist positions (and there are many) directly counter the comfort of his minarchist position (although I doubt criminals and alleged traitors would view Levin's style of government minarchist). This is why it's rather odd that Levin uses the term Statist so loosely.
Other than alliteration, "Kooky Cabal" is about as nonsensical of a description that you can get for Lew Rockwell's site. The libertarian positions (and there are many) do not make a cabal. They are quite open and available to any who seek them out - some more available than you'd like them to be. Kooky is subjective, but I'd argue the level of reasoning required among fellow libertarians is much higher than any of the main stream political or economic positions. Unless by "kookiness" Levin means the site is willing to let different opinions remain uncensored and either stand or fall on their own merit rather than a few keystrokes of a site administrator. Since Lew Rockwell's site is not a cabal, the kookiness becomes irrelevant.