Rand Super Pac Attacks Rand Super Pac

[jj-]

Matt Kibbe is a beltarian [*******] who never lifted a finger to try to stop the wars or the surveillance state. Also, Kibbe has a horrible record of wasting donor money and losing elections. The official Rand campaign is organizing a ground game and has hired a principled young libertarian and ex-Ron Paul staffer to run it.

Link (https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/rand-insider-texts-me/)

[William Tell]

Classless of Rockwell to post that. Also it, doesn't say what sort of 'insider' it is.

[Kotin]

Let's eat our own and never go anywhere.. Seems like the trend sometimes with our movement

[Warlord]

Let's eat our own and never go anywhere.. Seems like the trend sometimes with our movement

Yeah. CAV is a lot more than just Kibbe. Jeff Frazee is running it. I like them.

check out their team

http://www.concernedamericanvoters.com/team

[timosman]

Classless of Rockwell to post that. Also it, doesn't say what sort of 'insider' it is.

It does. It says the person is young and principled, also ex Ron. Do we know anybody who would fit that description ? :)

[AuH20]

What a petty dick.

[William Tell]

It does. It says the person is young and principled, also ex Ron.

No, that's who the guy in the text is talking about. Not who the guy texting is. I assume...

[William Tell]

Let's eat our own and never go anywhere.. Seems like the trend sometimes with our movement

I'm starting to think Lew likes being in the minority. Thinking you're smarter than everyone else feeds one's ego.

[jj-]

Young and Ron Paul supporter? Any basement dweller posting on this forum fits those requirements.

[William Tell]

Yeah. CAV is a lot more than just Kibbe. Jeff Frazee is running it. I like them.

check out their team

http://www.concernedamericanvoters.com/team I see a lot of young Ron Paul supporters on that list. LOL!

[SilentBull]

Lew and those like him have no desire for change. They just want to be rebels so they can keep complaining. They don't really want their ideas accepted by the majority because then they wouldn't feel special anymore. Why in the world would he post that?

[TaftFan]

Thanks for the tip, Matt!

[specsaregood]

No, that's who the guy in the text is talking about. Not who the guy texting is. I assume...

How do we even know that the "texter" even exists. At this point I even question whether Lew is just making this shit up to stir it up.

[AuH20]

Lew and those like him have no desire for change. They just want to be rebels so they can keep complaining. They don't really want their ideas accepted by the majority because then they wouldn't feel special anymore. Why in the world would he post that?

I complain incessantly, but I'm aware of the big picture. We need all the help we can get. Attempting to knock down Matt Kibbe strikes me as infantile.

[timosman]

I complain incessantly, but I'm aware of the big picture. We need all the help we can get. Attempting to knock down Matt Kibbe strikes me as infantile.

... or we are being taken for a ride ...

[William Tell]

I complain incessantly, but I'm aware of the big picture. We need all the help we can get. Attempting to knock down Matt Kibbe strikes me as infantile.

Especially since Kibbe isn't even the president of CAV, Jeff Frazee is. Kibbe is just a senior adviser, although the best well known of those involved.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah. CAV is a lot more than just Kibbe. Jeff Frazee is running it.Exactly, and Frazee is part of the Paul 'machine' so I don't think this is an unwanted effort (although some people may not like Kibbe on a personal/professional level)


Classless of Rockwell to post that. Also it, doesn't say what sort of 'insider' it is.Yeah, Lew's actions here are not good for the movement.


Although it shouldn't be hard to figure out who sent him the text message... very few people in the Paul 'machine' have Lew's cell phone number... we'll see when the next quarter reports come out so that we can look at who it might be

[DisneyFan]

What a dickwad.

[jj-]

Although it shouldn't be hard to figure out who sent him the text message... very few people in the Paul 'machine' have Lew's cell phone number... we'll see when the next quarter reports come out so that we can look at who it might be

Maybe you just used somebody else's phone number?

[Krugminator2]

Matt Kibbe filed the lawsuit with Rand over the NSA, so the text is factually incorrect. He turned Freedomworks into a libertarian group and helped mainstream libertarian issues with people who otherwise wouldn't get exposed to these ideas.

And the biggest issue with people like Rockwell and also Robert Wenzel (or whatever alias the penny stock pumper goes under) is that they' re dishonest people. It is bad enough that they dump on anyone who isn't part of their cult. They are liars and should be called out. They have zero personal integrity. Casual lying has become socially acceptable with them.

[Foreigner]

What? Voting-is-immoral-Rockwell has problems with the Rand campaign? How can that be?!?

[eleganz]

Lol, damaging Kibbe damages Rand which damages Ron

Aren't Lew and Ron really good friends?


I know Kibbe, he genuinely wants to help liberty candidates get elected.

[69360]

Is it infighting season already?

[mosquitobite]

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/06/18/matt-kibbe-tea-party-super-pac-rand-paul/

[Occam's Banana]

Lew and those like him have no desire for change. They just want to be rebels so they can keep complaining. They don't really want their ideas accepted by the majority because then they wouldn't feel special anymore. Why in the world would he post that?

:rolleyes: Beg the question, much? (SOP for Internet fora psychologizers ...)

Whether you agree with him or not, Rockwell does not believe that effective change can be achieved via electoral politics.
Regardless of whether he is right or wrong about that, it is ridiculous to mock him for not supporting something he does not support.

If you disagree him, then you should criticize the substance of what he says - not mock the psychology that you (conveniently) want to imagine makes him say it.

I could just as easily say of you: "logikal and those like him have no desire for change. They just want to be popular so they can feel good about themselves. They don't really care if their ideas are actually accepted by the majority, they just want to be one of the 'cool kids' who aren't concerned about anything but winning popularity contests."

I could say it about you. But I won't.
Because it would be totally bogus bullshit.
Just like what you said about Lew ...

[Matt Collins]

So I did some asking around and pretty much the whole "conflict" is bogus. Complete media fabrication.

[Occam's Banana]

And the biggest issue with people like Rockwell and also Robert Wenzel (or whatever alias the penny stock pumper goes under) is that they' re dishonest people. It is bad enough that they dump on anyone who isn't part of their cult. They are liars and should be called out. They have zero personal integrity. Casual lying has become socially acceptable with them.

So call him out, then, Mr. Internet Badass.

Please provide for us a list of 10 of Lew Rockwell's lies.

(Surely they must be at least that numerous, given Lew's "zero personal integrity" and penchant for "casual lying,")

Supply your evidence that they are actual lies (and not merely honest errors or expressions of opinion with which you happen to disagree).

TIA or STFU.

[Brian4Liberty]

Why did Lew post that?

[Vanguard101]

Lol Lew Rockwell is irrelevant. Dude is overrated and a bum. He hasn't done anything for the liberty movement and enjoys being apart of a cult-like following who really aren't that libertarian. He calls Kibbe a beltarian, but has probably never had a real conversation with him. He didn't help Ron's campaign at all. He tried to draw distinctions between Rand and Ron for no reason at all, and to top it all, he more than likely wrote the racist newsletters which were filled with lies. Anyone that follows him or takes him seriously is hilarious

[Occam's Banana]

What? Voting-is-immoral-Rockwell has problems with the Rand campaign? How can that be?!?

Whether or not you like or agree with Rockwell's reasons for not voting, not a single one of them has anything to do with voting being "immoral" ...

Why I Don't Vote
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-i-dont-vote/
Lew Rockwell (21 October 2010)

A lot of people have asked me why I do not vote.

1) Voting is the sacrament of the civil religion. I’m a political atheist.
2) Not voting bugs the regime, and no wonder. Such abstinence, like not complying in other ways, weakens them. What if they held an election and nobody came?
3) It’s a pain in the neck.
4) Your vote doesn’t count, unless the election is decided by a single vote. You are far more likely to be killed on the way to the polls than to have that happen.
5) The candidates itch to rule others. There is no lesser evil.
6) Politics is not our salvation. Indeed, the whole system is corrupt from top to bottom.

[Occam's Banana]

Lol Lew Rockwell is irrelevant. Dude is overrated and a bum. He hasn't done anything for the liberty movement and enjoys being apart of a cult-like following who really aren't that libertarian. He calls Kibbe a beltarian, but has probably never had a real conversation with him. He didn't help Ron's campaign at all. He tried to draw distinctions between Rand and Ron for no reason at all, and to top it all, he more than likely wrote the racist newsletters which were filled with lies. Anyone that follows him or takes him seriously is hilarious

Then why don't you and all the other ankle-biters throw him out of it?

Even if the establishment of the Mises Institute was the only positive thing Lew Rockwell has ever done for the liberty movement, and even if everything else he has ever done has been a negative for the liberty movement, then he would still on net have done far more for the liberty movement than all you Internet fora pissers-and-moaners combined.

[Occam's Banana]

It is bad enough that they dump on anyone who isn't part of their cult.


He [...] enjoys being apart of a cult-like following [...]

Strange how it's the ones who yap the loudest about "cults" who are also the ones who:
(1) bitch the loudest about people who say things they don't like or agree with,
(2) demand that such people should be "called out" as zero-integrity liars, and
(3) declare that such people "really aren't ... libertarian" ...

Just who is being "cult-like" here?

[Suzanimal]

Seriously? Done nothing for this movement? A liar? Cult like?

I love Lew Rockwell. I met him and he's a very nice man. I also appreciate all we've (me and my children) have learned at Mises.

I don't understand the disdain for Lew Rockwell on this forum.

[Suzanimal]

Strange how it's the ones who yap the loudest about "cults" who are also the ones who:
(1) bitch the loudest about people who say things they don't like or agree with,
(2) demand that such people should be "called out" as zero-integrity liars, and
(3) declare that such people "really aren't ... libertarian" ...

Just who is being "cult-like" here?

One True Path to Liberty Cult Starter Pack?

[timosman]

Seriously? Done nothing for this movement? A liar? Cult like?

I love Lew Rockwell. I met him and he's a very nice man. I also appreciate all we've (me and my children) have learned at Mises.

I don't understand the disdain for Lew Rockwell on this forum.

Your perspective might be biased because of the personal interaction with the man. :D

[specsaregood]

I don't understand the disdain for Lew Rockwell on this forum.

I'd say that the petty little douche posting he made and is the topic of this thread is one good reason to have some disdain, even if only temporarily.

[Occam's Banana]

I'd say that the petty little douche posting he made and is the topic of this thread is one good reason to have some disdain, even if only temporarily.

I have no problem with anyone being upset and angry at Lew for posting what he did.
And although I don't have any problem with him having done so, I understand why others do.

But there's a big difference between criticism (even angry and rancorous criticism, such as "petty little douche posting") on the one hand, and spouting slanderous and/or pseudo-psychological twaddle on the other.

Look at Matt's post, for example:

Yeah, Lew's actions here are not good for the movement. [etc.]

Although I am inclined to quibble that Matt construes "the movement" too narrowly here, being primarily concerned as he is with electoral politics, I don't have any real problem with his remarks (which is why I didn't offer any rebuttal to them). He could even have stated things much more invectively (as you did with "petty little douche posting"), and I would still not have any particular objection. (Though I do think your earlier "Lew is just making this shit up" comment is unwarranted.)

That is because I understand perfectly well that within the context in which Matt was speaking, Lew's posting of this item is troublesome and even outrageous for those who don't share Rockwell's attitude toward electoral politics. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. I myself got pissed about Matt Kibbe calling Ron Paul an "isolationist" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477646-Matt-Kibbe-on-NewsmaxTV-talks-about-Rand-Paul-and-2016-field) - but I was somehow able to express my emphatic disapproval without denouncing Kibbe as being some kind of "cultist" who has "zero personal integrity." Nor did I find it necessary to fatuously and stupidly sneer at him as someone who has contributed nothing to the liberty movement. In order to make my point - and merely because I vehemently disagreed with what he said/did - I certainly did not need to crudely and ridiculously psychologize Kibbe as having no "desire for change" and as not wanting his ideas to be more widely accepted because he wouldn't feel "special" anymore if they were.

It is entirely possible to express displeasure with or criticisms of Rockwell (or Kibbe, or etc.) - even harsh ones - without indulging in a "Two Minutes Hate."

[Brian4Liberty]

Why post that anonymous text from an "insider"? One might guess that it was posted out of personal animosity towards Kibbe. Did that play into this?

On the other hand, publicly posting it might be a favor to the person who sent the text. Once again, that could be due to petty infighting. But what if we follow the money? Does someone want to discourage donations to the CAV PAC? And if that is the case, would they prefer the donations go somewhere else?

[thoughtomator]

Why would any libertarian trust Kibbe after FreedomWorks under his leadership gave the middle finger to its own mission statement during the last Presidential campaign in order to screw over Ron Paul?

The inability to root out betrayers like Kibbe has been one of the worst failings of the libertarian movement. People put up with them throwing wrenches into the works and degrading the effectiveness of the movement, even when they tip their intentions in the most obvious of ways. Tar and feathering is NOT too good for these types.

[Matt Collins]

Why would any libertarian trust Kibbe after FreedomWorks under his leadership gave the middle finger to its own mission statement during the last Presidential campaign in order to screw over Ron Paul?Huh? can you please cite your source?

[thoughtomator]

Huh? can you please cite your source?

First hand communication with FW at the time it was happening. I'll have to archive dive to come up with the exact mealy-mouthed excuses I was given, but I believe the true reason was money from the Romney camp and FW dependence on it at the time.

[Sola_Fide]

Lol Lew Rockwell is irrelevant. Dude is overrated and a bum. He hasn't done anything for the liberty movement and enjoys being apart of a cult-like following who really aren't that libertarian. He calls Kibbe a beltarian, but has probably never had a real conversation with him. He didn't help Ron's campaign at all. He tried to draw distinctions between Rand and Ron for no reason at all, and to top it all, he more than likely wrote the racist newsletters which were filled with lies. Anyone that follows him or takes him seriously is hilarious

I think that is a little too rough. Lew and his bunch have good qualities.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Lol Lew Rockwell is irrelevant. Dude is overrated and a bum. He hasn't done anything for the liberty movement and enjoys being apart of a cult-like following who really aren't that libertarian. He calls Kibbe a beltarian, but has probably never had a real conversation with him. He didn't help Ron's campaign at all. He tried to draw distinctions between Rand and Ron for no reason at all, and to top it all, he more than likely wrote the racist newsletters which were filled with lies. Anyone that follows him or takes him seriously is hilarious

Want to guess who started and subsequently ran the Mises Institute for 3 decades?

[Krugminator2]

Please provide for us a list of 10 of Lew Rockwell's lies.

(Surely they must be at least that numerous, given Lew's "zero personal integrity" and penchant for "casual lying,")


What I said is not disputable. It is not an opinion.

I started to link to a couple of posts, but it serves no purpose. If you have read his site, you know exactly what I am talking about.

[Free Radical]

I don't understand the disdain for Lew Rockwell on this forum.

He's a bearded buffoon.

[Occam's Banana]

[T]he biggest issue with people like Rockwell [...] is that they're dishonest people. It is bad enough that they dump on anyone who isn't part of their cult. They are liars and should be called out. They have zero personal integrity. Casual lying has become socially acceptable with them.


Please provide for us a list of 10 of Lew Rockwell's lies.

(Surely they must be at least that numerous, given Lew's "zero personal integrity" and penchant for "casual lying,")

Supply your evidence that they are actual lies (and not merely honest errors or expressions of opinion with which you happen to disagree).


What I said is not disputable. It is not an opinion.

I started to link to a couple of posts, but it serves no purpose. If you have read his site, you know exactly what I am talking about.

IOW: When challenged to actually back up your petty shit-talk, the only corroboration you can muster is a ludicrous declaration of the indisputablity of your own not-opinions.

Nevertheless, I thank you. Seriously, I mean it. Thank you!

Your brazenly hypocritical contempt for any standard of evidence or truth speaks for itself, loud and clear.

Nothing I might say could have done a better job of illustrating your utter and abject lack of intellectual integrity.

[Krugminator2]

Nothing I might say could have done a better job of illustrating your utter and abject lack of intellectual integrity.

I could spend a day on this post. Here is just a sample off the top of my head.

He wrote and lied about writing Ron Paul's Newsletters then denied like it was some sort of witch hunt on him right at the pinnacle of Ron Paul's campaign. Numerous people from Ron Paul's secretary, TWO of Ron Paul's chiefs of staff, along with a number of people in the movement at the time said he was the author with Rothbard. It was consistent with his other writings at the time. Ron Paul wasn't going to snitch on a friend. An honorable person would not have let Ron Paul twist in the wind and would have admitted to something everyone knew. Instead he acted like it was the evil media out to get him.

Just on the front page of his site the last time I visited he referred to Ben Carson as a Murderous Doctor, a hero who has developed procedures that saves lives. And almost beside the point, Ben Carson is not the most hawklsh person. On the same page, he said the Koch Brothers dislike Ron Paul because of his position on the Federal Reserve. Charles Koch dedicated his book to Ludwig Von Mises and has talked about the Fed in speeches. And it is absurd statement on so many levels that he casually throws out. He said Rand Paul voted for the TPP. No he didn't. He said Art Laffer was Rand Paul's chief advisor. No he isn't. This is just recent stuff I remember just because I saw it linked from here.

He publishes stuff like this. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/eric-margolis/adios-cuba/ That isn't a parody. That is a treasure trove of unhinged idiocy. Castro and Communist sympathy is not cute or amusing. It isn't libertarian. It is disgusting. This is just from recent memory and proves my point.

[Occam's Banana]

I could spend a day on this post. Here is just a sample off the top of my head.

He wrote and lied about writing Ron Paul's Newsletters then denied like it was some sort of witch hunt on him right at the pinnacle of Ron Paul's campaign. Numerous people from Ron Paul's secretary, TWO of Ron Paul's chiefs of staff, along with a number of people in the movement at the time said he was the author with Rothbard. It was consistent with his other writings at the time. Ron Paul wasn't going to snitch on a friend. An honorable person would not have let Ron Paul twist in the wind and would have admitted to something everyone knew. Instead he acted like it was the evil media out to get him.

Just on the front page of his site the last time I visited he referred to Ben Carson as a Murderous Doctor, a hero who has developed procedures that saves lives. And almost beside the point, Ben Carson is not the most hawklsh person. On the same page, he said the Koch Brothers dislike Ron Paul because of his position on the Federal Reserve. Charles Koch dedicated his book to Ludwig Von Mises and has talked about the Fed in speeches. And it is absurd statement on so many levels that he casually throws out. He said Rand Paul voted for the TPP. No he didn't. He said Art Laffer was Rand Paul's chief advisor. No he isn't. This is just recent stuff I remember just because I saw it linked from here.

He publishes stuff like this. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/eric-margolis/adios-cuba/ That isn't a parody. That is a treasure trove of unhinged idiocy. Castro and Communist sympathy is not cute or amusing. It isn't libertarian. It is disgusting. This is just from recent memory and proves my point.

You haven't "proven" anything. You've just flung a farrago of opinions and invective (and at least one demonstrable falsehood) against the wall, apparently in hopes that I would not notice that you still haven't provided any actual evidence that Lew Rockwell is a "casual liar."

Let's consider just four of the items you claim as so-called "proof" that Rockwell is a "casual liar":

ONE:

First, you open with the newsletter issue - and as is to be expected of any attempt to rehash the contents of that particular can of tangled & innuendo-driven charges and counter-charges, you have not produced anything dispositive. You certainly have not provided any "proof" that Rockwell lied about not being the author of the particular pieces that fall under the "newsletter" question. You merely assert that he did, and you note that some other people also assert that he did. Here's a tip: assertions of X are not "proof" of X (in the logic-and-argumentation business, claiming assertions of X as evidence of X is called "begging the question," and people who have intellectual integrity don't do it).

And as far as the writings under question being "consistent" with anyone goes: from what I have seen, they are pretty much "consistent" with the writings of any "paleo-fusionist" commentator who took part in the foolish and misguided "let's try to appeal to latent (or not so latent) bigots" effort with which Rockwell and Rothbard so inauspiciously and unfortunately associated themselves.

So ... still no "proof" of anything. (And the rest of what you said on this particular matter is irrelevant, since it is all contingent on your having "proven" that Rockwell lied about it, which you have failed to do.)

TWO:

You said: "He said Art Laffer was Rand Paul's chief advisor. No he isn't."

This constitutes a demonstrable falsehood on your part.

Rockwell did NOT say that Art Laffer was Rand Paul's "chief adivisor."

Rockwell said that Art Laffer was Rand Paul's "chief advisor" on Rand's recently-announced tax plan.

Here are his exact words (emphasis added): https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/the-rand-tax/

Unfortunately, Rand’s chief advisor on this is Art Laffer.

It is abundantly and overwhelmingly clear from context that "on this" is a reference to Rand's tax plan and only Rand's tax plan.

As several other independent sources confirm, Rockwell's characterization of Laffer as a "chief advisor" in this regard is accurate and factual.

FTA (emphasis added): http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/18/rand-paul-introduces-his-tax-plan/

Along with Forbes, Rand Paul sought out the advice of Reagan administration economist Arthur Laffer, and the non-partisan Tax Foundation.

FTA (emphasis added): http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-threads-the-needle-on-flat-tax-119175.html

Paul's new "Fair and Flat Tax," crafted with the help of the Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer [...]

FTA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/arthur-laffer-has-a-neverending-supply-of-supply-side-plans-for-gop/2015/04/09/04c61440-dec1-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html

[Laffer] sat down with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who was hoping the economist would bless his flat-tax plan. Laffer critiqued it instead as having too many complicated, economy-distorting features. He recalled Paul expressing disappointment he couldn't endorse it.

After that sit-down, Paul's advisers kept calling Laffer, he said. When Paul announced his presidential run this week, he touted a tax plan far more in line with Laffer's vision.


Referring to Laffer as a "chief advisor on this" is not at all unwarranted.

So if anyone is being mendacious here, it is YOU and NOT Rockwell.

THREE:

You said: "Just on the front page of his site the last time I visited he referred to Ben Carson as a Murderous Doctor, a hero who has developed procedures that saves lives. And almost beside the point, Ben Carson is not the most hawklsh person."

I am unable to find the particular piece to which you refer (via Google search: site:lewrockwell.com "ben carson" "murderous doctor" (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:lewrockwell.com++%22ben+carson% 22+%22murderous+doctor%22))

But despite the fact that you have already been shown to have misrepresented things Rockwell has said (see TWO above), I have no problem taking your word for it on this particular item. I have no problem with it because - as true as it may be (and I do not doubt it at all) - it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to show that Rockwell is a "casual liar" of any kind.

You said that the statement "Ben Carson is not the most hawkish person" is "almost beside the point." Actually, it is not at all "beside the point." It clearly demonstrates that Carson's support for an interventionist foreign policy is the basis of Rockwell's application of the adjective "murderous" - and it just as clearly demonstrates that you yourself understood this to be the context.

Now ... you DO remember that "Rockwell is a casual liar" (and NOT that "Rockwell uses hyperbolic adjectives that Krugminator2 doesn't like") is the thesis for which you are supposed to be supplying evidence ... don't you? Because it sure doesn't seem like it ...

To anyone who is not being deliberately obtuse, Rockwell's use of "murderous" is blindingly obvious hyperbole. In fact, it is SO obviously rhetorical that it is impossible to credit that anyone whose wits have not been addled by willfully blind & biased loathing could offer it as "evidence" of a "casual lie" and actually expect it to be taken as such.

Be offended by it if you like. That is your prerogative. But it does NOT make Rockwell any kind of "liar." Exercising my own prerogative and speaking for myself, I don't see what the problem is with hyperbolically referring to someone as "murderous" for advocating policies that will result in the deaths of innocents. And the fact that you seem to think that "saving lives" in some other venue (such as medicine) somehow exonerates such a person from the murderous consequences of the murderous policies he would implement or perpetuate is simply irrelevant. The victims of "our" various current and future murderous wars and interventions are unlikely to be mollified or appeased by the fact that the man who is directing them happened to have saved the lives of some other persons somewhere. And I don't see why they should be. Now, you may think that's "ridiculous" or "horrible" or whatever - but no matter how much you want to splutter with outrage over it, it is certainly NOT mendacious in ANY way. (Unless I am lying about what I think. But I am not. And you have not given any reason for thinking that Rockwell is, either.)

FOUR:

You said: "He publishes stuff like this. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/eric-margolis/adios-cuba/ That isn't a parody. That is a treasure trove of unhinged idiocy. Castro and Communist sympathy is not cute or amusing. It isn't libertarian. It is disgusting. This is just from recent memory and proves my point."

If you want to accuse the author of that particular article (Eric Margolis) of having produced a piece of fatuous bilge - and thence to accuse Rockwell of having published a piece of fatuous bilge - then I'll be more than happy to join you. Margolis' infatuation with what he expects to become the Cuba-that-was (as some kind of halcyonic idyll) is bizarre and callously selfish.

When it come to anything beyond that, though - sorry. You have yet again completely failed to "prove" anything with regard to Lew Rockwell being a "casual liar." The ONLY thing this "proves" is that Rockwell sometimes publishes things by other people that Krugminator2 deems to be "unhinged idiocy" - or "disgusting" - or not a "parody" - or not "cute" - or not "amusing" - or not "libertarian" ... or whatever ...

But what the hell does "cuteness" or "amusement" or etc. (or any lack thereof) have to do with veracity or mendacity? I will repeat my question from earlier: You DO remember that "Rockwell is a casual liar" (and NOT that "Rockwell publishes stuff by other people that Krugminator2 thinks is 'unhinged idiocy' and 'disgusting' and not 'cute' and not 'amusing' ...") is the thesis for which you are supposed to be supplying evidence ... don't you? Apparently not.

You don't get to move the goalposts just because you can't find any other way to score points ...

In conclusion:

I explicitly challenged you to produce evidence that Rockwell is a "casual liar" who has "zero integrity" - evidence that could not be attributed to honest error or expressions of opinion with which you happen to disagree. But instead of supplying such evidence, among what you did offer in response are: (ONE) a question-begging repitition of your accusation, wrapped up in a rehash of a scandal that is dispositive of nothing, (TWO) an easily demonstrated falsehood, used to misrepresent an accurate and factual statement by Rockwell, (THREE) outrage over Rockwell's use of obviously hyperbolic adjectives, and (FOUR) more outrage in the form of (hypocritically) hyperbolic (or just bizarrely irrelevant) brickbats aimed at what Rockwell allows others to say on his site. Not a single one of these things constitutes evidence - let alone any kind of "proof" - that Rockwell is a "casual liar" who has "zero integrity."

Words have meanings. You don't get to fling around accusations like "casual liar" and "zero integrity" just because you don't like what someone else says (or the way he says it) - "casual liar" is NOT defined as "someone who says things that Krugminator2 disagrees with" and "zero integrity" is NOT defined as "saying (or allowing others to say) things that Krugminator2 doesn't like" (and only someone who is devoid of intellectual integrity - and/or is himself a "casual liar" - would try to get away with claiming that they were).

[Krugminator2]

He called Ben Carson a killer doc. That alone proves the point. There is no reason to link anything else. If you think that's okay, it's not. Nutjobs talk like that. https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/killer-doc-wins-southern-gop-straw-poll/

Steve Moore authored the tax plan. Art Laffer was consulted.

Publishing pro-Cuba trash is never okay.