Michael Scheuer goes after Rand

[LibertyEsq]

Translation: You didn't know $#@! before Ron Paul, and now you have really don't know what to believe, having not really followed up on Ron Paul's reading lists...

I am interested in supporting Rand because he has more potential than anyone to advance the liberty movement. Michael Scheuer is evidently interested in supporting Michael Scheuer.

Just look at the second paragraph of the quoted, taking petty offense at having his book removed from a website by someone who was under no obligation to have it there in the first place, and using repeated pejoratives in place of any semblance of a calm, sensible argument? Yeah, no thanks

[cindy25]

I think Scheuer had some justification. I was stunned when Rand came out for aid to Ukraine. aid for Israel we all expect, but Ukraine?

and why did Rand take Scheuer off his reading list? if he read the book and I assume he did, and liked it enough to put on the list why remove it.

of course Scheuer is trying to sell books, and is not facing an Iowa primary.

[CaseyJones]

its sour grapes people .... you never ascribe human tendencies to your gods, that is why pagans get it right

[LibertyEsq]

I mean does he even believe what he is writing? Does he really think Rand was so influenced by meeting with Rupert Murdoch that he is now "siding with the bipartisan interventionists," apparently over the lack of influence he must have received in the countless years being raised by Ron? I've made it obvious that defeatist hipstertarians who don't care to win elections, like Scheuer, irk me, but articles like this just plain piss me off...

[Crashland]

It's funny how Rand is getting relentlessly attacked on foreign policy from both sides. Some people thinking he's the anti-Dick Cheney and others somehow thinking he's no different from the neocons. Rand is apparently so much like the neocons Cheney, McCain and Graham yet they are all deathly afraid of him getting his way on foreign policy as president.

[Christian Liberty]

And Mark Levin has been attacking Ron Paul (and his "ilk") for a week now.

But how did Mark vote? You aren't supposed to pay attention to his rhetoric

That's it. Scheuer is dead to me. I only need Collins opinion...

lol!

He's going to vote for bills that fund Israel. He's already made that clear. I don't see why people think he would actually vote against those bills. He's not going to be on the losing side of a 99-1 vote and give his opponents in the GOP primary ammunition. You would see that in ads all over Iowa. And I'm not defending the policy, but it's just what Rand is going to do when you consider that his main goal is to win the GOP nomination, even if he has to abandon libertarian/non interventionist principles on some issues.

Some? I'd say its quite a bit at this point. I'll often defend Rand outside of this forum when he's being presented as the libertarian and where other people are supporting worse candidates like Cruz and Rubio, but let's be realistic about what we're dealing with here. Scheuer seems correct to me.

Michael Scheuer was spot-on.

Rand does seem like he's selling out to the neocons/zionists (one in the same).

How else does one interpret his support for Russian sanctions and Israeli actions against Gaza?

On these subjects, he sounds no different than John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

I don't think he's comparable to John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But he doesn't really sound like Ron Paul either.

Ron Paul is the only reason I recognize the name Michael Scheuer, and now he is getting pissy at Rand for taking his book off of a list on his site? Real class act...

Actually, he thanked him.

I am interested in supporting Rand because he has more potential than anyone to advance the liberty movement. Michael Scheuer is evidently interested in supporting Michael Scheuer.

I think that's up for debate. I think this is worth considering at least:

http://reformedlibertarian.com/artic...erty-movement/

For what its worth, I'm honestly somewhere in the middle here. Not supporting Rand doesn't mean you don't care about liberty, and supporting Rand doesn't make you a compromiser.

I think Scheuer had some justification. I was stunned when Rand came out for aid to Ukraine. aid for Israel we all expect, but Ukraine?

and why did Rand take Scheuer off his reading list? if he read the book and I assume he did, and liked it enough to put on the list why remove it.

of course Scheuer is trying to sell books, and is not facing an Iowa primary.

And Rand is trying to appease zionists. Which I thought was obvious. That's why he removed the book.

I mean does he even believe what he is writing? Does he really think Rand was so influenced by meeting with Rupert Murdoch that he is now "siding with the bipartisan interventionists," apparently over the lack of influence he must have received in the countless years being raised by Ron? I've made it obvious that defeatist hipstertarians who don't care to win elections, like Scheuer, irk me, but articles like this just plain piss me off...

Scheuer is a conservative, and definitely not a hipster anything

[Christian Liberty]

It's funny how Rand is getting relentlessly attacked on foreign policy from both sides. Some people thinking he's the anti-Dick Cheney and others somehow thinking he's no different from the neocons. Rand is apparently so much like the neocons Cheney, McCain and Graham yet they are all deathly afraid of him getting his way on foreign policy as president.

The truth is obvious, he's actually somewhere in between.

[asurfaholic]

I doubt it. We're facing a wave of insanity.

That's to be expected this is the world we live in. Drives people plum nuts

[asurfaholic]

The truth is obvious, he's actually somewhere in between.

I don't actually think this is the case. I'm thinking Rand is just playing a game, and if elected he will use his podium to tell the world that things are going to be different.

I really believe that.. I'm not a rand fanboy.

[Crashland]

The truth is obvious, he's actually somewhere in between.

Yes. At least, that is how he is positioning himself. Judging from the context though, it is really not likely that he could actually be *more* interventionist than his current rhetoric. It is more likely, however, that he could be less interventionist than he is leading on. It's hard to see through the fog of political expediency to see his true colors. But I would bet money that in reality he is somewhere between Ron Paul and Rand Paul, not between Rand Paul and Dick Cheney, if that makes sense.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't actually think this is the case. I'm thinking Rand is just playing a game, and if elected he will use his podium to tell the world that things are going to be different.

I really believe that.. I'm not a rand fanboy.

Fair enough. I'm not convinced. But the point is that neocons see Rand Paul as noninterventionist and noninterventionists see Rand as a neocon based on their own biases. Taking Rand at his own words, he's somewhere between those two "extremes" (I put that in quotes since noninterventionism is the correct position.)

Yes. At least, that is how he is positioning himself. Judging from the context though, it is really not likely that he could actually be *more* interventionist than his current rhetoric. It is more likely, however, that he could be less interventionist than he is leading on. It's hard to see through the fog of political expediency to see his true colors. But I would bet money that in reality he is somewhere between Ron Paul and Rand Paul, not between Rand Paul and Dick Cheney, if that makes sense.

I tend to think Rand is being very upfront with us, or at least he is being upfront with regards to how he will actually act as President. Maybe he personally believes the same things as Ron, but it isn't going to matter when he actually gets elected. What you see is what you are going to get.

[r3volution 3.0]

There's nothing wrong with someone from our side criticizing the interventionist policies to which Rand grudgingly pays lip service, but for one of us to attack Rand by name for his foreign policy reveals a serious lack of understanding. Wise up Mike.

[Brian4Liberty]

On these subjects, he sounds no different than John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

I listened to the actual interview with Rand. He sounded very different than McCain and Graham.

[mit26chell]

It's the non interventionist position to say that Israel has the right to defend themselves, that our government shouldn't tell Israel that they can't defend their homeland and their people. Rand is correct on that. But sanctions on Russia certainly violate non interventionist principles.

Wrong. It's only the non-interventionist position if you're also opposed to intervention in the form of subsidizing Israel with foreign aid... But Rand is for foreign aid to Israel and believes an attack on Israel is an attack on the US. Someone needs to ask Randal what treaty we have with Israel that compels us, the US taxpayer, to send our hard earned money to them.

[William Tell]

Fair enough. I'm not convinced.

His endorsements in races for open seats, and local elections are hard core Ron Paul people. Rand is pretty darn good, plus his voting record is far better than his rhetoric.

[TER]

His endorsements in races for open seats, and local elections are hard core Ron Paul people. Rand is pretty darn good, plus his voting record is far better than his rhetoric.

I think this is very important. If you wish to have a good idea what Rand's policies will be if he was President, then look at the people he is endorsing and what their positions are. Of course, this does not apply across the board, but I think it is one of the better ways in teasing out what is rhetoric to get elected and what are firm beliefs which he would apply if he had the power to.

[idiom]

The wheels of democracy turn slowly.

Most here will be incredibly disappointed with a Rand Paul Presidency, although most of the nation will be shocked at the difference.

[r3volution 3.0]

The wheels of democracy turn slowly.

Most here will be incredibly disappointed with a Rand Paul Presidency, although most of the nation will be shocked at the difference.

+1

The trick is to convince people here that it's not too little, while convincing everyone else that it's not too much.

[T.hill]

Give credit to reasonable skepticism with respect to Rand and those alike who might purport libertarian interests. I will not criticize rational argumentation simply for being something I dislike, however critical analysis that attempts to ascertain truth will itself be analyzed and counter-argued when a perceived falsehood is identified.

Michael Scheurer's intentions may or may not be good, but regardless his claims of Rand selling out to other interests other than liberty are wrong and yet again I'll repeat myself; Rand's actions have always been in pursuant towards more freedom and a Jeffersonian foreign policy. The means don't always justify the ends, but almost all criticism of Rand from what I seen is always directed towards the means he employs rather than the desired end he is attempting to attain.

My support of Rand is not unconditional and I assume most like-minded libertarian supporters would agree and the limits of my support for him are also well defined. My support of Rand will conclude not just when his ends differ from that of libertarianism, but also when the means he employs become directly detrimental to the ends pursued. So when Rand advocates sanctions to alleviate the chance of a traditional hot war or when Rand's rhetoric sometimes deviate's from the libertarian norm and etc, then understand the end being pursued is still the same and the means he's using do not directly contradict or harm his ultimate desire. Which from as far as I can tell is liberty.

[Crashland]

Wrong. It's only the non-interventionist position if you're also opposed to intervention in the form of subsidizing Israel with foreign aid... But Rand is for foreign aid to Israel and believes an attack on Israel is an attack on the US. Someone needs to ask Randal what treaty we have with Israel that compels us, the US taxpayer, to send our hard earned money to them.

I think I remember Rand saying something on the subject of foreign aid, that there are a lot of other countries that don't act in our interest that we should stop sending aid to first before we talk about stopping the aid to Israel. Well, if he hasn't put it that way, it might be a good way to put it.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's a tough position to be in when the extremes from both sides spin and twist your words in an attempt to create as much outrage as possible on their respective ends of the spectrum. Perhaps Hillary can jump in too and say that Rand's foreign policy is a war on women.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand should just stop trying so hard to appease everyone. What do we call people who do that who aren't politicians? Rand needs to stick to his convictions and tell the neocons to screw it. And we need to focus more on principle than results.

[Matt Collins]

Again, people need to understand the difference between rhetoric and policy

[SilentBull]

Scheurer is apparently not as smart as I thought he was.

Yeah, this is surprising. How can people not see what Rand is doing here?

[idiom]

Again, people need to understand the difference between rhetoric and policy

Rhetoric is what Obama said, Policy is what Obama did.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rhetoric is what Obama said, Policy is what Obama did.

Ah, so they are opposites?

[cocrehamster]

It's interesting that Scheuer feels the need to attack who is probably the most non interventionist Senator of his lifetime.

[georgiaboy]

This is Michael trolling the establishment.

[nayjevin]

My impression is Scheuer believes as strongly as AIPAC does that the future depends on the proper foreign policy. Foreign policy for him is the first policy not to compromise.

[r3volution 3.0]

My impression is Scheuer believes as strongly as AIPAC does that the future depends on the proper foreign policy. Foreign policy for him is the first policy not to compromise.

means v. ends

Curtailing interventionism may well be the most important end.

Attacking the most non-interventionist politician around is a poor choice of means for the accomplishment thereof.