PDA

View Full Version : Liberty All-Stars vs Fall-Stars




RCA
10-15-2012, 12:23 PM
Over the last 5 years, there has been a handful of liberty leaders that have been more-or-less unwavering in their convictions and there are those that showed their true colors eventually. I'll start a list for both sides to get the topic started. Please add more if you so choose. Also, please don't nitpick any specific positions to argue either side. This list is meant to be a generalized list.

Liberty All-Stars:
Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Lee Rockwell, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Stefan Molyneux, Gary Johnson

Fall-Stars:
Rand Paul, Southern Avenger, Sheriff Mack, Jesse Benton, John Tate, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin

sdsubball23
10-15-2012, 12:49 PM
why do Glenn Beck and Palin make the team?

RCA
10-15-2012, 01:16 PM
why do Glenn Beck and Palin make the team?

They didn't. They are listed as Fall-Stars. Meaning at one time they were ranked rather high by at least a size-able portion of the liberty movement and then "fell" out of the sky later on. Get it? "Fall-Stars"? Please re-rate this thread based on your better understanding of my post. Thank You.

ninepointfive
10-15-2012, 02:08 PM
why did sheriff mack make that list? because he's voting for Romney?
Explanation for Rand?

Otherwise, you're definitely on the right track!

RCA
10-15-2012, 02:22 PM
why did sheriff mack make that list? because he's voting for Romney?
Explanation for Rand?

Otherwise, you're definitely on the right track!

Both Rand and Mack publicly endorsed Romney.

acptulsa
10-15-2012, 02:26 PM
Both Rand and Mack publicly endorsed Romney.

Awfully black and white. Yes, Romney is a terrible endorsement. Maybe those who endorse him don't deserve to be considered all-stars. But to put someone who is in the senate fighting the good fight, and being the best senator in years and years, in the same group as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, neither of whom were ever a great boon to the liberty movement (and one of which arguably never claimed to be)? A bit much for me.

I personally think I like Rand Paul's voting record better than Johnson's. Does that count for nothing?

ninepointfive
10-15-2012, 02:30 PM
Both Rand and Mack publicly endorsed Romney.

those statements definitely diminish them, but it doesn't make them fall stars. I'd say to still give them a chance.

WilliamShrugged
10-15-2012, 02:38 PM
where does john stossel lye?

RCA
10-15-2012, 02:39 PM
where does john stossel lye?

I would say an All-Star. I don't think he's done very much to degrade himself has he?

RCA
10-15-2012, 02:40 PM
Ur, double-post due to slow server. Mod please delete this post.

acptulsa
10-15-2012, 02:44 PM
Given the anti-interventionist load of crap Dubya fed us during the 2000 election, I'd put him in the fallen stars category. And that would discourage me from putting anyone with any value to the movement at all in the same group.

RCA
10-15-2012, 02:46 PM
What about Pat Buchanan?

EBounding
10-15-2012, 02:54 PM
Add Kucinich to "Fall-stars". He endorses Obama.

cajuncocoa
10-15-2012, 02:56 PM
Add Kucinich to "Fall-stars". He endorses Obama.Kucinich shouldn't be on the list in the first place. Neither should Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck.

RCA
10-15-2012, 03:07 PM
Kucinich shouldn't be on the list in the first place. Neither should Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck.

I would agree but there was a SIZEABLE portion of the liberty movement that were hoodwinked by both of them earlier on.

Nirvikalpa
10-15-2012, 03:09 PM
OR

you could make your own individual lists of "all stars" and "fall stars," and donate accordingly.

cajuncocoa
10-15-2012, 03:19 PM
I would agree but there was a SIZEABLE portion of the liberty movement that were hoodwinked by both of them earlier on.There is a sizable portion of the liberty movement being hookwinked by candidates every day. That is all.

Pisces
10-15-2012, 03:20 PM
The problem that I have with these lists is that they are comparing apples and oranges. Tom Woods is an academic and a writer. Judge Napolitano today is a writer and a media commentator. Molyneaux, the Southern Avenger, and Lew Rockwell are in similar positions so I would also put them in this group. They don't have to win elections and appeal to a broad range of voters. In fact, it's often in their best interest to take more "purist" positions to draw attention to themselves and their work. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, but it's naive to think that self-interest isn't a factor in the positions they take.)

The people who hold public office or are planning on running for office don't have the luxury of always being able to sing to the choir in a way that drives other people away. I.e., sometimes they have to "pander". Of course, who's to say that some of the non-politician "liberty all-stars" aren't "pandering" in their own way.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-15-2012, 03:25 PM
BS. Rand Paul and Sheriff Mack have sacrificed a lot for liberty, and that isn't negated by a Romney endorsement.

Unless they openly embrace Romney as someone they agree with completely, and disavow their beliefs, I will treat them exactly the same as before.

Ekrub
10-15-2012, 03:25 PM
The problem that I have with these lists is that they are comparing apples and oranges. Tom Woods is an academic and a writer. Judge Napolitano today is a writer and a media commentator. Molyneaux, the Southern Avenger, and Lew Rockwell are in similar positions so I would also put them in this group. They don't have to win elections and appeal to a broad range of voters. In fact, it's often in their best interest to take more "purist" positions to draw attention to themselves and their work. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, but it's naive to think that self-interest isn't a factor in the positions they take.)

The people who hold public office or are planning on running for office don't have the luxury of always being able to sing to the choir in a way that drives other people away. I.e., sometimes they have to "pander". Of course, who's to say that some of the non-politician "liberty all-stars" aren't "pandering" in their own way.

I wish more people understood that. Minus palin and beck, everyone you listed are a-okay with me

brooks009
10-15-2012, 03:42 PM
Unless they openly embrace Romney as someone they agree with completely, and disavow their beliefs, I will treat them exactly the same as before.

Almost no endorsement means they completely agree with a person. An endorsement usually means they mostly agree.

How many of us here mostly agree with Romney and would endorse him?

Smart3
10-15-2012, 03:46 PM
The only fall-star I see is OP.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-15-2012, 03:48 PM
Almost no endorsement means they completely agree with a person. An endorsement usually means they mostly agree.

How many of us here mostly agree with Romney and would endorse him?Any of these people who endorsed Romney are doing it because he is better than Obama, not because they like him.

cajuncocoa
10-15-2012, 03:50 PM
Almost no endorsement means they completely agree with a person. An endorsement usually means they mostly agree.

How many of us here mostly agree with Romney and would endorse him?

Let's break that question down.

How many of us here mostly agree with Romney?

Of those, how many would endorse him?

I don't "mostly agree" with Romney at all. There was a time when I might have thought I did, because a lot of GOP candidates try to sound like free market proponents when they're trying to get elected. The reality, of course is, they are not. I don't agree with him on foreign policy AT ALL. A lot of Mitt's rhetoric is just flip-flopping too.

I could not endorse him.

cajuncocoa
10-15-2012, 03:51 PM
Any of these people who endorsed Romney are doing it because he is better than Obama, not because they like him.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Don't endorse evil ...there is no good reason to do so.

talkingpointes
10-15-2012, 03:54 PM
Any of these people who endorsed Romney are doing it because he is better than Obama, not because they like him.

Forget the moral argument, just go for the utilitarian/consequential bits. Everyone knows why they did it, that is the point of the groaning. The point is they are already (have been) in office and didn't need to play the crowd, the election is over. Rand given his popularity should use it as a cushion to lay out more purist points while they are listening.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-15-2012, 03:56 PM
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Don't endorse evil ...there is no good reason to do so.

They aren't endorsing evil, they are saying I am better off with this guy as compared to this guy. And I'm sure either one is "evil" so to speak.

cajuncocoa
10-15-2012, 04:01 PM
They aren't endorsing evil, I disagree.


they are saying I am better off with this guy as compared to this guy. Yes, that is the point you made to which I replied.


And I'm sure either one is "evil" so to speak.Yes, I acknowledged that...that was my main point, actually...which kinda refutes the first statement you made above.