My sources on the ground in NV tell me that Paul is going to crush Romney.

What will that say for the trumped up “Newsletter scandal” then?

By 7:00 pm est time tonight some folks here at Liberty Papers will be eating crow. Headlines:

Ron Paul shocks Nation; Beats Romney in Nevada

Maybe all of this talk of drying up funds is really getting people to rally for Dr. Paul.

Supporting Evidence: See above two posts.

1. He is a-Kook/Racist/Fringe/KKK/Nazi(see the staged group lovefest over this comment above by some of the foxes in cahoots “Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer. Heil Ron Paul.”)/Radical/etc.

Hmmmmm, well no contributor at the Liberty Papers said he was any of those things. Provide an actual, attributable quote to back it up. The comment you call out was poking fun at the collectivist comment someone else made that you can’t be an American or a Libertertarian unless you support Ron Paul. This is so eerily similar to statements made by Hitler and the Nazi’s in Germany that the sarcastic response was the obvious one.

2. He will-Never win/has no chance/his coalition is fracturing/etc.

Well, we have said that recently. Of course, the folks saying that have backed it up with facts, trends and data to support our assertions. Are you willing to provide a single quote from a Liberty Papers contributor, in context, to support your claims? Any data whatsoever? Or just claim that he can win without evidence for it.

3. The “controversy” of the “scandal” has destroyed him/He is done/His entire career is over,finished,fini

Uhhhh, yeah, provide quotes from here, Reason, etc. to support this. Please, I really want to see them.

4. Commenter X is an “expert”(in poli sci) and speaking with the “authority” of an “expert” I judge his chances to be Nil.

Actually, I haven’t seen that here. Have you? Again, please provide sources, data, quotes, etc.

5. Commenter X is/was once a supporter but NOW that I have “discovered” the “TRUTH” about him I will not/cannot support him and will make sure to tell as many people as possible that “did you know I supported him but no longer do”

Yep, I’ve seen that a few times. Now, why is that a problem? There’s people supporting RP who claim to have been something other than libertarian until recently. And then they had an epiphany and realized that RP was the last, best hope. I don’t see you tackling those folks and claiming they are a problem. Why not?

6. Bring out the former “Staffer” that wants to tell all the “Real” inside story on the victim(in this case RP)

Uhhhhhh ……… He’s not a “former” staffer, he is the current press guy for the Paul Campaign.

7. People that support him are kooks/fringe/nazi/etc.

Well ……… nobody that I’m aware of said a word about nazi’s. Kooks, yes. Fringe types, yes. Conspiracy theorists, yes. Racists, yes. One Worlder believers and Truthers, yes. And there is plenty of evidence, based on comments made over and over on this blog that such is the case. Including your comments.

8. People that support him do so because it is a “CULT” movement, i.e. they do not support him for “rational reasons” like the people that support the establishment approved candidates and they are “blinded” to the “damaging truth” about him.

Actually, I would say that every candidate has folks supporting them that behave in a fanatical fashion that resembles cult behavior. The difference is that candidates with more support can keep their fanatics on the margin, for the most part. The MOST vocal RP supporters behave in a fashion that resembles a cult, including being unwilling or unable to see obvious, clear facts presented to them. Or having elaborate conspiracies that they have deduced must exist to explain it all away.

Feel free to add the rest but you will note the same playbook is being followed and the same tune is being sung by the various anti-RP megaphones.

Okay, how about this:

1. The real leader of this “Neo Con Front Machine” (which is secretly funded by the Trilateral Commission, by the way) is adept at duping folks into thinking he is just one of the contributing staff, and not the real brains behind the machine, the “eminence gris” of The Liberty Papers is none other than Doug Mataconis. Brad Warbiany is a stuffed shirt, false front for Doug.

2. We cleverly disguise our One World lies with the words of liberty in order to build up a large following of fools …… errrr free thinking liberty minded people …… and then lead them down the path we want them to follow now that trust us. Imagine me laughing maniacally as I dupe yet another one of you!

You and DTC seem to be unable to keep straight people with different names. Have you noticed that it is UCrawford and I, for example, who don’t support Ron Paul because we think he’s incompetent, that Brad and Tarran are not particularly leaning one way or the other, that Doug would like to see Paul’s campaign clean up the mess and drive forward the core message and the other contributors all have their own positions? In other words, there is no monolithic position here, and we tend to range from moderate support to outright opposition? No, you probably haven’t.

This sort of post is why we think you guys are loons. You insist on concocting elaborate conspiracies to explain something with quite simple explanations. You insist on attributing the worst motives to those that disagree with you. You insist that we aren’t “true libertarians” or that we are opposed to freedom or that we aren’t good Americans, or whatever other loony collectivist claptrap you can come up with.

You are your own worst enemy. You drive away less radical people who might otherwise be sympathetic to Ron Paul’s message with your behavior and words. You do not create agreement with your thoughts, instead you cause people to have no desire to be associated with someone that you defend in this manner.

Rational, calm discourse based on logic and fact is the answer, not this.

Dude…you’re at Level 4 of Thorazine withdrawal, aren’t you?

You are correct here:

“What a joke you guys are. I’m a Libertarian, none of these so called think tanks or rags is. You’re not. They’re just talk talk talk, 0 action. They’re a distraction, for all practical purposes, designed to mire us in inaction.”

In fact, you have understated the reality of “Mainstream” “Liberty” Organizations/Publications.

Their only function is to frustrate any movement to re-attain the Liberty Americans long ago enjoyed in this nation. The “Liberty Papers” is among their number; mere time wasting liberty Busy Boxes and another conduit to redirect the straying back to the Statist ranch.

Please note the repeated use of the standard engineered consent techniques here as well as the vast majority of other ostensible Liberty promotion organizations.

I explained to many, that were naively bouyed by the brief spurt of media attention RP received recently, as well as predicting long before the fact, that it was merely part of the prelude for an attempted coupe de gras. It serves no purpose to deliver the media equivalent of a character assassination sucker punch until the victims name is somewhat recognized by the intended audience of the eventual smear campaign. The timing was also predictable, as was, the compressed time frame in which it played out(and timing before what was anticipated to be a good primary state) in the major press after months of low level buzz created by a constant drumbeat from lesser sources like the “Liberty Papers”. Coincidental timing of the “REASON” cover story on RP? No coincidence at all, the timing was perfect for the intended purpose. (Here is DM and companys cue to, once again, toss out the standard method to squelch inquiry by dismissing inconvenient inquiries as “conspiracy theory”).

Thanks for spreading the light of Liberty Richard and please assist me in warning others about the pretenders, like the “Liberty Papers”, that seek only to subvert the efforts of the TRUE heirs to the cause of Patrick Henry.

BTW-Their methods are laughable primarily due to the transparently consistent, time worn techniques:

(Not exhaustive)

1. He is a-Kook/Racist/Fringe/KKK/Nazi(see the staged group lovefest over this comment above by some of the foxes in cahoots “Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer. Heil Ron Paul.”)/Radical/etc.

2. He will-Never win/has no chance/his coalition is fracturing/etc.

3. The “controversy” of the “scandal” has destroyed him/He is done/His entire career is over,finished,fini

4. Commenter X is an “expert”(in poli sci) and speaking with the “authority” of an “expert” I judge his chances to be Nil.

5. Commenter X is/was once a supporter but NOW that I have “discovered” the “TRUTH” about him I will not/cannot support him and will make sure to tell as many people as possible that “did you know I supported him but no longer do”

6. Bring out the former “Staffer” that wants to tell all the “Real” inside story on the victim(in this case RP)

7. People that support him are kooks/fringe/nazi/etc.

8. People that support him do so because it is a “CULT” movement, i.e. they do not support him for “rational reasons” like the people that support the establishment approved candidates and they are “blinded” to the “damaging truth” about him.

Feel free to add the rest but you will note the same playbook is being followed and the same tune is being sung by the various anti-RP megaphones.

http://www.ideachannel.tv/

They also have the 1990 edition.

The companion book is good, but if you want to see what I was talking about I highly recommend the DVD set of “Free to Choose” (it was a PBS miniseries). That’s where you get to see Friedman’s debating style in action and that’s a bit lost in the books.

It’s kind of pricey (just shy of $100) but I found it to be worth it.

As for CATO, I’m a little indifferent; can’t say I agree with a lot things they seem to spout.

Really need to start reading the major authors soon…
::put’s Free To Choose on amazon wish list::

Gotcha…I agree.

Because they don’t try to get people to be libertarian, or adopt things that are libertarian. They just advocate things that make sense and move things forward.

Actually yes and no…Friedman on “Free to Choose” did attempt to convince people to adopt libertarian positions but he did so non-confrontationally. On the panels at the end Friedman always seems to have at least one or two clear idiots on the discussion panel…people who would take blatantly statist positions because of how offended they were by the anti-state argument. Then Friedman would tear their argument apart not by pointing out the flaws but by sincerely agreeing with them and demonstrating that individual initiative could accomplish their desired goal much better without the intervention of the state. It was the other libertarians he actually seemed to argue the most with (except Thomas Sowell…who advocated the same positions as Friedman, although much more aggressively). The panel discussions were just a fascinating exercise on how to hijack your opponent’s argument and turn it against them without needing to alienate or demonize them…straight out of “How To Win Friends And Influence People”. Just a really fascinating guy Friedman was.