The apostle Lew, disciple of the savior Murray, is outraged that someone questioned Saint Ron:
"Writes Justin Raimondo:
"Bruce Bartlett, former columnist for Libertarian Review turned neocon, and Andy “Gay Marriage Is All” Sullivan, team up to smear Ron Paul as a 'crackpot' and lie about his view of the Fed."
Well, Bartlett never called Paul a "crackpot": he called one of his ideas "crackpot." (An important difference: Newton was not a crackpot, but his theological notions probably could be described as such.) And Sullivan never called Paul or his ideas anything at all! He just linked to Bartlett, without further commentary. And what lies are being told? Paul does want Congress to have Fed oversight, doesn't he? Maybe there is some "lie" involved (I'm really not following the details of this debate), but what is it? And couldn't it have been an honest mistake? No, let's just assume it's a "lie," as calling your opponent a liar is so much more gratifying than calling him mistaken.
And note: how is it relevant that Bartlett may have "turned neocon", and what is it but an ad hominem attack to throw in "Gay Marriage Is All" in the middle of Sullivan's name? (I'm convinced, by the way, that Raimondo has a big time crush on Sullivan, he is so obsessed with the fellow.) And, not only is it irrelevant, it's a lie! Sullivan's doctoral thesis on Oakeshott was certainly not focused on the issue of gay marriage.
So when someone makes a substantive criticism of one of the ideas of one of the Mises Institute's Church Fathers, that is a "smear," but when the response is irrelevant personal attacks, well, that's just good clean fun, hey? This is not the way one conducts intellectual debate; this is the way one riles up the passions of the faithful in a modern, gnostic revolutionary movement.