General

Re: Fast and Furious

John James — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:43:06 GMT

Aristophanes:
I half expected Paul to not succumb to their two bit threats on his family (if that is what happens out there in politicoeliteland).

But of course Ron's nothing if not a family man.

Re: Fast and Furious

Aristophanes — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:27:35 GMT

Don't forget, it's not like Rothbard was in favor of always being completely straightfoward either.

This is why Maddow and Maher were trying to pigeonhole Gillespie. Republicans say small government, so any support in that direction is, therefore, "Republican."

And we don't know what kind of threats were (probably) made against Ron and/or his family personally on top of that.

From the thread you linked to, a comment I made:

I half expected Paul to not succumb to their two bit threats on his family (if that is what happens out there in politicoeliteland).

Re: Fast and Furious

gotlucky — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:50:39 GMT

Just in case anyone missed the end of Bill Whittle's video that JJ posted, he ends with:

This is Watergate with 300 dead people lying on the ground. Have you no shame?

Re: Fast and Furious

John James — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:02:36 GMT

ThatOldGuy:
+1, right on. And then when Gillespie called her on it he was painted as a Republican.

Pretty clever how they do that, eh?

They're nothing if not persistent in finding a way to be predictable.

Clayton:
Physically fighting the Establishment while they still hold the sympathies of the public is suicidal.

Bingo. My point exactly.

Clayton:
More important than any particular issue is the principle that the States have a right to thumb their nose at the Federal government on pretty much anything. We need to build and extend this foundation.

Exactly what all this is about.

Re: Fast and Furious

Clayton — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:36:26 GMT

The battle is won in the hearts and minds of the public. Physically fighting the Establishment while they still hold the sympathies of the public is suicidal. And it's far from clear that the goals of classical liberalism cannot be attained but through physical violence - the 10th amendment movements are a great illustration of a path towards greater freedom and prosperity that doesn't involve violence. But we need to stop the agents provocateur who are attempting to infiltrate the movement and push for a State vs. Federal showdown over 10th amendment laws regarding immigration. The Feds will come off as the "progressive heroes" and the States will come off as country-bumpkin racists. More important than any particular issue is the principle that the States have a right to thumb their nose at the Federal government on pretty much anything. We need to build and extend this foundation.

Clayton -

Re: Fast and Furious

ThatOldGuy — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:35:40 GMT

John James:

I'm glad Maddow was finally called out on her hackery...and of course she tries to deny it immediately, even though she literally spent the entirety of the segment up to that point making it a partisan issue (just like she does every single second of her non-purposful comedy show on a major cable news network that gets fewer viewers than some youtube channels.)

And of course her fellow hack Maher jumps in to defend her, when it was she who opened the door and claimed there are times/ issues in which she would pick a Republican over a Democrat, and Gillespie called her bluff.

+1, right on. And then when Gillespie called her on it he was painted as a Republican.

Re: Fast and Furious

John James — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:31:35 GMT

Aristophanes:

C'mon, we need regulations on alchohol? For all the teenagers that are literally dying to go get underage drunk and drive around town. I just figured Gillespie was being 'pragmatic', taking the Rand Paul approach to rhetoric, you know, where no one knows quite what you mean because you are so ambiguous? Noam Chomsky has that one down, too.

Why does Murray Rothbard have to be dead?

Don't forget, it's not like Rothbard was in favor of always being completely straightfoward either. But yes, I'd say Gillespie "betrayed the cause" in this case (although, I don't think he was trying to compromise or seem ambiguous to hide his true leanings...I think he really feels that way...as the article said, he's a "lifestyle libertarian".)

If the state is a constant aggressor and there is nothing wrong with self defense...I wonder if Rothbard would have called off the GOP delegate strategy like Paul did, just because of a few fights.

I think this is the type of instance where you stand down. You have to wise and pick your battles. This is not a fight that will serve the advancement of liberty. And we don't know what kind of threats were (probably) made against Ron and/or his family personally on top of that.

Re: Fast and Furious

vive la insurrection — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:04:31 GMT

I can tolerate that Bill Whittle guy once in awhile.

Even if he is a partisan, the best line in the video was at the end when he said (to paraphrase): the liberals would have been in an uproar if it were 300 graphic designers and a university president in San Fran. I think liberals even admit to this kind of thinking nowadays in a "self effacacing ironic" kind of way.

Re: Fast and Furious

Aristophanes — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:28:19 GMT

http://mises.org/misesuniv.asp

I like how this is basically the "undergrad program" in Praxeology.

...But I'd be careful with how far you go with endorsements...

I noticed that in the first video when Maddow is throwing red herrings at him, he responds to "Should we have no regulations on Alchohol or tobacco?" with "Alchohol, yes. But, tobacco I'm not so sure about."

C'mon, we need regulations on alchohol? For all the teenagers that are literally dying to go get underage drunk and drive around town. I just figured Gillespie was being 'pragmatic', taking the Rand Paul approach to rhetoric, you know, where no one knows quite what you mean because you are so ambiguous? Noam Chomsky has that one down, too.

Why does Murray Rothbard have to be dead?

I just had a thought I am almost afraid to post about.

If the state is a constant aggressor and there is nothing wrong with self defense...I wonder if Rothbard would have called off the GOP delegate strategy like Paul did, just because of a few fights.

Re: Fast and Furious

John James — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:56:59 GMT

I'm glad Maddow was finally called out on her hackery...and of course she tries to deny it immediately, even though she literally spent the entirety of the segment up to that point making it a partisan issue (just like she does every single second of her non-purposful comedy show on a major cable news network that gets fewer viewers than some youtube channels.)

And of course her fellow hack Maher jumps in to defend her, when it was she who opened the door and claimed there are times/ issues in which she would pick a Republican over a Democrat, and Gillespie called her bluff.

What's so deliciously ironic about this is, it wasn't a year ago Gillespie was on the very same show talking about his book with the very same host...and Maher argued that there was no such thing as an "independent" voter...he literally said that people want to be called that, but they always vote one way. Gillespie called himself an independent or libertarian and Maher jumps in and said "...who happens to always vote Republican".

In a quick search I can't find a working link to the full episode, but here's a clip where you get a sense of where Maher's going:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

I think it's possible (in fact I'm pretty sure of it based on Maher's history of flip flopping on guests...Ron Paul is a great example) that Maher had not the first clue of Gillespie's politics when he originally had him on the show, as he tries to finger him as a Republican who just doesn't like the label early in the episode, and then later on in the conversation when Gillespie goes off on the drug war or something like that Maher is genuinely surprised and is like "whoa you really aren't a Republican".

I'll be the first to admit Gillespie can be usful in a setting like this when he's surrounded by leftists, because he knows a thing or two about the reality of government, and it's obvious he hates nannies. I've linked plenty of his videos.

...But I'd be careful with how far you go with endorsements...

Re: Fast and Furious

Aristophanes — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:36:02 GMT

The liberals on the Bill Maher Show are more than willing to shill for Obama. Maddow constantly wants to push the conspiracy angle. Maher calls it a "political witchhunt" just before he bashes Gillespie for "paying too much attention." Maher: "We're not ideological." What a joke. They are propagandists. It makes me sick.

Gillespie is right on. I'm liking him more and more.

Re: Fast and Furious

Nielsio — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:51:24 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Fast and Furious

Nielsio — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:49:08 GMT

The Daily Show:

1. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-21-2012/glocks-and-spiels

2. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-21-2012/differentiate-your-party-s-assertion-of-executive-privilege-from-the-previous-administration-s

Re: Fast and Furious

Nielsio — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:47:42 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Fast and Furious

John James — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:35:53 GMT

Layman's intro

(Please visit the site to view this media)

analysis

(Please visit the site to view this media)