Nature does not bestow virtue; to be good is an art.
Seneca
Images of the Day
 |
| Via Sen. Coburn (R-OK) |
 |
| Via Being Classically Liberal |
Chart of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Cato Institute |
I think this is my first FB Corner segment in over a week. And of all things, I got involved in a dustup thread with Tom Woods.
 |
| Via Dollar Vigilante |
(Tom Woods). "My life was changed forever when I discovered the philosophy of Mitt Romney" -- said no one, ever. Happy birthday, Ron Paul, and thank you for being real in a world of phonies.
Cheap shot; unworthy of you, Tom.
Thomas E. Woods Jr. We must be living in different universes. I thought it was dead on. Not everything critical is unworthy or cheap. That Romney has no obvious philosophy is probably his most widely known quality.
Tom, you just dug yourself deeper. There is no reason to take a cheap shot at someone whom has different political principles in your slavish devotion to Ron Paul. Can you say I'm done with your podcast and your Facebook?
Thomas E. Woods Jr. I repeat: there is no discernible philosophy in Romney. He says we can't cut the budget too much because we'll have a recession, but we need to cut it, a little. We should raise the minimum wage, but capitalism is great. Can you call that a philosophy?
Incidentally, I am fascinated by the phenomenon of, "I have learned and benefited from you a great deal, but because of one social media post I am shunning you forever!" No good work, given away every day and for free, goes unpunished.
I stand by my statement. You are utterly pathetic to use the birthday of someone else to attack another person.
I'm pretty sure that Mitt Romney is deeply and philosophically devoted to the principle that he should be President.
I would rather have an experienced executive than some crank whom has nothing to show for a career in politics.
Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ronald, I think you may not understand what "cheap" means. "Cheap" would be if one of his kids got arrested and I used that against him. Demanding that the guy be coherent is not cheap.
How would you feel if I used Martin Luther King's birthday to criticize George Wallace, or George Washington's birthday to criticize George III?
But if you must stop listening to me, etc., go right ahead. I don't intend to walk on eggshells for anyone, especially when, as I've shown here (and I have not been refuted), I'm not wrong.
Romney is not an Austrian, but arguing that only Austrians are principled is rather self-serving and pretentious. Just because you can't identify or won't acknowledge Romney's principles doesn't mean he doesn't have any; it just means that you have not done your due diligence.
Perhaps Ronald would care to share some of the great principles of Mitt Romney.
I'm not the jerk attacking him.
We are all waiting, Ronald. You called out Tom for reasons you can't even defend. Having nice hair doesn't qualify you for President. What are some of the other virtues of Romney? I know I can list off a number of his flip-flops off the top of my head. What do you think he stands for?
Romney is a big boy and can speak for himself. Political campaigns are a type of marketing. Getting elected in deep-blue Massachusetts where 85% or more of the legislature is Democrat meant that he had to avoid being defined and marginalized by his opponents.
Look, if you want to talk about principles, don't look to Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not open borders--I am.
Tom, somehow I wonder how much Ronald listens to you anyway. I think it's likely his "I'm done with your podcast" that's the real cheap shot here.
Actually, I've promoted Tom on several occasions in my own political blog.
lol you were dead on with this comment, Tom.. just as confused as you at the response.
No, Tom has proved himself to be a pompous ass, and I'm a PhD from a different field.
Romney has no principles and no campaign skills. The reason he got elected in Massachusetts is because he is a Democrat, Ron. Look at the campaign against Obama. On issues, you couldn't tell them apart. There's a reason Romney lost against a weak opponent. Tom was spot on.
Anyone who confuses Romney with Obama is a retard. I have criticized Romney's campaign in my blog; I thought he should have run against 12 years of Bush/Obama, including his neocon foreign policy. But every other opponent, including Ron Paul, was double-digits down to Obama.
Thomas E. Woods Jr. Since Ronald hasn't answered anything I've said, I think I"ll remove myself from this. I strongly urge people to read this entire thread. That I should have to do "due diligence" to discover someone's philosophy pretty much makes my point better than I could have myself.
You want a debate, Tom? I'm not your pushover guests; I throw back twice as hard. You lack Aquinas' ability to argue both sides of the issue. All you are doing is preaching to your choir.
I fail to see what there would be to "debate". Mr. Woods made a fantastically witty example based on the difference between principle and pragmatism, and you got butt-hurt. No debate at all.
No, he took a cheap shot at someone he doesn't know who simply doesn't agree with his belief system. It's a pathetic, smug, self-superior cheap shot. As I mentioned before, Ron Paul is NOT that principled either, on immigration and other topics. Woods is too much into brownnosing Ron Paul to point out Paul's "pragmatic" politics.
(more personal attacks on Romney and me in the interim)
Listen, you obnoxious retards. How many times are you going to bypass the fact that Ron Paul is NOT open borders--which is a violation of principle; this is at least as serious as anything Woods is trying to put on Romney--so Woods is a pathetic hypocrite. Where are you guys, in third grade? I made the SUBSTANTIVE comment that Tom Woods, the man that he is taking cheap shots behind his back, did not have the intellectual integrity to do due diligence on Romney's governing philosophy. I'm not going to play your elementary school games; believe me, you don't want to piss me off. I don't engage in ad hominem attacks. You are the assholes engaging in an unprovoked attack on Romney. I don't think Tom Woods has ever had an original idea in his life.
(Some other troll tried to link Romney and Obama on 15 points.)
If I had the time and patience, I would address each of these points. Just a few short notes: Romney is on the record as opposing the auto bailouts. Second, RomneyCare was basically an attempt to bypass an attempt to go single-payer; the Bush Administration threatened to cut off Medicaid money because they thought the government was subsidizing uninsured middle income people. Third, anyone with a modicum of economics knowledge knows the VAT is vastly better than the status quo: it doesn't penalize productivity, savings or investment. To quote the grumpy economist: "Is a consumption tax (VAT or similar) a good thing? Every bit of economic analysis says yes. Economists hate distortions, taxes that lead to bad economic behavior. Our tax system is full of them. Broaden the base, lower the rate, tax consumption not savings, dramatically simplify the code, and you can get the same revenue with much less economic damage."
But you keep begging the question. Ron Paul opposes open borders; that is a mortal sin against the liberty to migrate. And Woods called Romney a "phony". Ron Paul had no base in Congress to do squat. Amash and others got steamrolled on the Patriot Act and other issues. And how many times have we seen someone with a libertarian sympathy (e.g., Ronald Reagan) disappoint us?
More Proposals
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via IPI |
Billy Joel (featuring Ray Charles), "Baby Grand"
