Anti-war.com Joins the Smearbund

By -
Here.

And note: Bovard is not saying that 25 years ago Paul made some mistakes in whom he let write in his newsletters, as the Reason folks were. He's saying that right now Paul is selling out principle for a shot at speaking at the convention. Talk about Smearbundocity! But this will go unremarked at the LRC blog, because it's not from [T]Reason Magazine or the Cato Institute.

Comments

  1. Anonymous1:44 AM

    Gene,

    Would you consider yourself part of the smearbund, or is there a seperate quasi-German word for you?

    And, if you joined Cato, do you think LRC would acknowledge your existence?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:47 AM

    Gene,

    Note Bovard's comment on the $30 million. Can we have a bit of expanded commentary from Crash Landing on the spent $30 million?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim8:49 AM

    Smearing Ron Paul? Good heavens, I thought they were spearing Ron Paul.

    "Smearing" doesn't seem as bad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy10:20 AM

    Bovard is not saying that 25 years ago Paul made some mistakes in whom he let write in his newsletters, as the Reason folks were.

    That's right, Gene, that's all the Reason people ever said about RP or LR. Keep thinking that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy10:21 AM

    BTW I agree that Bovard's talk about the campaign's spending was fightin words. (I think that was worse than the "seat at the table" comment.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah1:36 AM

    "That's right, Gene, that's all the Reason people ever said about RP"

    Well, that is about all they said about him.

    "or LR."

    Aaah, now that's the guy the said RP made the mistake concerning!

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah1:37 AM

    "Can we have a bit of expanded commentary from Crash Landing on the spent $30 million?"

    It was spent to hire new writers for his newsletters.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob Murphy12:10 PM

    OK so let me make sure I get your position now, Gene: The people who go to LewRockwell.com are hypocrites for being mad at a website that hosted attacks on Lew Rockwell, and that criticize Ron Paul for associating with such a person to this day, whereas they are not nearly as mad at another website where a guy accuses Ron Paul of not being pure enough on his antiwar stance.

    Their hypocrisy astounds me. And by the same token, I bet if someone made fun of my momma, I would be more upset (and blog about it here) than if someone made fun of Obama's mama. I guess that shows what a hypocrite I am.

    ReplyDelete
  9. gcallah8:52 PM

    "OK so let me make sure I get your position now, Gene: The people who go to LewRockwell.com are hypocrites"

    Who ever said 'hypocrites'? My own choice of words would be 'cult members'.

    "for being mad at a website that hosted attacks on Lew Rockwell"

    I never cared that they were 'mad' -- I cared that they engaged in vicious personal attacks on writers who were merely noting the truth. (Yes, Bob, Lew DID write those newsletters -- as one of the Reason writers noted, De Coster was the ONLY blogger at LRC denying that -- as he said, 'Wow, no one told De Coster that the allegations were true!'

    'whereas they are not nearly as mad at another website where a guy accuses Ron Paul of not being pure enough on his antiwar stance."

    Bovard did not accuse him of being 'impure' -- he accussed him of being a sellout.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more