PDA

View Full Version : Antiwar.com: The Politics of Anti-Interventionism - Justin Raimondo




cajuncocoa
03-16-2013, 09:00 PM
How change will come: Rand Paul shows the way forward (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/03/14/the-politics-of-anti-interventionism/)

itshappening
03-16-2013, 09:02 PM
is he still Ted Cruz in a tupee or whatever this week/

Why post someone who has been extremely rude about Rand in Rand's forum?

I don't get it and never will. Oh well.

cajuncocoa
03-16-2013, 09:24 PM
is he still Ted Cruz in a tupee or whatever this week/

Why post someone who has been extremely rude about Rand in Rand's forum?

I don't get it and never will. Oh well.
Says the guy who posts about someone (Levin) who has been extremely rude to Ron on Ron's forum. :rolleyes:

itshappening
03-16-2013, 10:28 PM
Says the guy who posts about someone (Levin) who has been extremely rude to Ron on Ron's forum. :rolleyes:

The difference is - and i've always made this clear to you - Levin and the others have millions of listeners. If we never posted anything interesting they said who have been rude about Ron at some point over the last 6 years that would exclude most of the mass media.

twomp
03-16-2013, 10:47 PM
The difference is - and i've always made this clear to you - Levin and the others have millions of listeners. If we never posted anything interesting they said who have been rude about Ron at some point over the last 6 years that would exclude most of the mass media.

So basically you are upset at the OP for doing the same exact thing you do and your only defense is that Levin has more listeners?

LibertyEagle
03-16-2013, 10:57 PM
is he still Ted Cruz in a tupee or whatever this week/

Why post someone who has been extremely rude about Rand in Rand's forum?

I don't get it and never will. Oh well.

It's a good article about Rand. I'm not going to hold a grudge against Raimondo; it serves no purpose.

LibertyEagle
03-16-2013, 10:59 PM
Says the guy who posts about someone (Levin) who has been extremely rude to Ron on Ron's forum. :rolleyes:

That's an idiotic defense. Has he posted Levin lambasting Ron? I doubt it. But, the same doesn't hold true for some of the Rand-haters, who have gone out of their way to post insults in Rand's own subforum; not to mention spewing their venom across the larger RPFs.

Raimondo has apologized twice for his ignorant statements about Rand. That is one helluva lot more than I have heard from some on this site.

itshappening
03-16-2013, 11:10 PM
So basically you are upset at the OP for doing the same exact thing you do and your only defense is that Levin has more listeners?

There's a larger purpose to monitoring those people to see what they're saying about Rand and the GOP.

twomp
03-16-2013, 11:16 PM
There's a larger purpose to monitoring those people to see what they're saying about Rand and the GOP.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you doing it but the fact that you are upset when someone else is doing the EXACT same thing you are makes it seem a bit hypocritical.

itshappening
03-16-2013, 11:30 PM
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you doing it but the fact that you are upset when someone else is doing the EXACT same thing you are makes it seem a bit hypocritical.

No, it's not. I look out for what the big talkers have to say about Rand the GOP because they command a huge audience and thus influence. I could care less what Raimondo says unless he is attacking Rand and being an ass.. which he has been doing for a few years. But seriously, he's on no ones radar and it doesnt matter just annnoying... kind of like having to swat a fly away.

Occam's Banana
03-17-2013, 02:08 AM
No, it's not.

Yes, it is.


I look out for what the big talkers have to say about Rand the GOP because they command a huge audience and thus influence.

And yet, in another thread just a day or so ago, you were avowing that it makes no difference at all what they have to say about Rand, positive or negative.


I could care less what Raimondo says unless he is attacking Rand and being an ass.. which he has been doing for a few years. But seriously, he's on no ones radar and it doesnt matter

Well, he's obviously on YOUR radar. And you obviously care a great deal about what Raimondo - and what you refer to as "the Lew Rockwell crowd" - has to say.

If you didn't, you wouldn't waste so much time complaining about them at every opportunity - while simultaneously insisting that they are are impotent and irrelevant (just like you are doing here).


just annnoying ... kind of like having to swat a fly away.

... or kind of like your own posts about them ...

itshappening
03-17-2013, 04:12 AM
Yes, it is.



And yet, in another thread just a day or so ago, you were avowing that it makes no difference at all what they have to say about Rand, positive or negative.



Well, he's obviously on YOUR radar. And you obviously care a great deal about what Raimondo - and what you refer to as "the Lew Rockwell crowd" - has to say.

If you didn't, you wouldn't waste so much time complaining about them at every opportunity - while simultaneously insisting that they are are impotent and irrelevant (just like you are doing here).



... or kind of like your own posts about them ...

Who they endorse on Jan 1st 2016 doesn't make a difference to the race. Again this is the point i'm making. What they say day in and day out over the years is more important than who they decide to endorse on Jan 1st 2016 where they won''t throw the race magically with their words in Iowa .

And no he's not on my radar i'd never even see hiss stuff if it wasn't posted here. really I could care less, like many other millions of people

Occam's Banana
03-17-2013, 04:38 AM
Who they endorse on Jan 1st 2016 doesn't make a difference to the race. Again this is the point i'm making. What they say day in and day out over the years is more important than who they decide to endorse on Jan 1st 2016 where they won''t throw the race magically with their words in Iowa.

And you were saying EXACTLY the opposite in the in the other thread I referred to.

You asserted that it does not matter what they say about Rand, positive or negative.

You were not talking about endorsements. You were talking about anything & everything they say about Rand - good or bad.

You said that it did not matter whether or how they were critical of Rand, and that the only important thing is they were talking about him (not what they were saying about him).

Yet, when Raimondo and the "Lew Rockwell crowd" (as you call them) talk about Rand in a negative way, it suddenly starts bothering you that Rand is being criticized.


And no he's not on my radar i'd never even see hiss stuff if it wasn't posted here

Really? YOU are the one who started the "the Lew Rockwell crowd just doesn't get it" thread (in order to complain about Michael Rozeff referring to Rand's filibuster as "useless") ...


really I could care less, like many other millions of people

Says the guy who doesn't seem to miss an opportunity to chime in about how unimportant, insignificant & irrelevant he thinks they are.

Obviously, you could "care less". Just as obviously, you actually don't "care less" ...

Otherwise, you wouldn't waste so much bandwidth on them.

itshappening
03-17-2013, 05:00 AM
And you were saying EXACTLY the opposite in the in the other thread I referred to.

You asserted that it does not matter what they say about Rand, positive or negative.

You were not talking about endorsements. You were talking about anything & everything they say about Rand - good or bad.

You said that it did not matter whether or how they were critical of Rand, and that the only important thing is they were talking about him (not what they were saying about him).

Yet, when Raimondo and the "Lew Rockwell crowd" (as you call them) talk about Rand in a negative way, it suddenly starts bothering you that Rand is being criticized.



Really? YOU are the one who started the "the Lew Rockwell crowd just doesn't get it" thread (in order to complain about Michael Rozeff referring to Rand's filibuster as "useless") ...



Says the guy who doesn't seem to miss an opportunity to chime in about how unimportant, insignificant & irrelevant he thinks they are.

Obviously, you could "care less". Just as obviously, you actually don't "care less" ...

Otherwise, you wouldn't waste so much bandwidth on them.

As long as they're saying "Rand Paul" over and over to millions of people that's a good thing. Most of them are positive. Some of them are not. It doesn't matter that much.

When Raimondo attacks Rand or calls him a stupid name he pisses off about 50 people who read his column...He also misunderstands what Rand's strategy is and is willfully ignorant. This is just annoying because it gets posted here and I have to see it and point out his stupidity and remind forumites that Rand hasn't sold them out and is suddenly working for the neocon defense lobbyists

Origanalist
03-17-2013, 05:52 AM
As long as they're saying "Rand Paul" over and over to millions of people that's a good thing. Most of them are positive. Some of them are not. It doesn't matter that much.

When Raimondo attacks Rand or calls him a stupid name he pisses off about 50 people who read his column...He also misunderstands what Rand's strategy is and is willfully ignorant. This is just annoying because it gets posted here and I have to see it and point out his stupidity and remind forumites that Rand hasn't sold them out and is suddenly working for the neocon defense lobbyists

It was a good article, did you read it?

Emerick
03-17-2013, 07:03 AM
Why is what Raimundo talking is important? Because is far more intelligent than Levin, Limbaugh, Beck etc.

That's why.

Reece
03-17-2013, 08:50 AM
And because a lot of people here read antiwar.com. How many people here watch Levin?

Also, when he called Rand Ted Cruz in a toupee, that was on Twitter. Not on his column.