19 votes

Doctor Paul Craig Roberts Calls Rand Paul A Neocon

Harsh Words from PCR re Rand Paul:

He is just another fool prostituting himself for the neoconservative warmongers and the military/security complex. If Rand Paul is the hope for America, then clearly there is no hope.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


The torch of "Ron Paul's message", (if you want to call it that) is now being carried by his son. He is just doing it in a MUCH smarter way. Do not mistake rhetoric for intent.

Rand was undeservedly attacked by PCR in this thread article. And you continue to defend PCR with distortions and untruths.

This debate started when you tried to prove that PCR supported RP for president. I clearly demonstrated that that is not true. Then you raise PCR to the level of a "great libertarian thinker". Again, not true (no matter what your old friend says). Your devotion to this man is unwarranted. Hopefully you see that now.

The Liberty Movement is not about Rand just as it was not about Ron. I assure you, Rand has not fallen as far from the Paul Tree as you may think... He certainly doesn't deserve to be attacked by PCR on the war issue. He did not advocate for military action. Cruz was trying to flank him politically to the right on the war issue. He had to respond. It's politics. Something Ron was never any good at, which is why he was branded a Kook by the idiot media. Rand, however demands their respect. This is incredibly significant.

They would never let Ron near the White House. There is a chance his son can get there, yet the Rand-Haters are so filled with hate, that they are willing to support a known Keynesian Statist over Rand on a site that bears his family name. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Shame Game

Shame Game

i'm pleased to see you've mostly given up the disagreeable attitude you've had all along, and the name calling. congratulations! The torch is being carried by many, and there are plenty who don't care for son but love the father; even some who love the son but have turned to disrespect for father (i'm guessing because of the differences that keep popping up) i'll let it go at that. no clint go back and look it started because you flipped out over PCR being called a great libertarian thinker (what i'm not allowed my own opinion?). his articles on anti war and personal liberties are considered to be some of the best written. if you bother to give a close read i wrote that PCR was "Pro Ron Paul" sorry clint but that is a fact unless you think he's lying. you then wrote that he didn't support him in 08. i didn't dispute that. who cares? BTW there's a PCR pro snowden article here that i'd recommend. hate? haters? this is getting old probably to everyone. i think you'll find if you go beneath the surface it's not the man they hate, but actions, behaviors, statements and so on. give people here a little credit please, people who for the most part were taught by ron paul. BTW PCR is not running for anything. from what i've seen here there are a lot of possible candidates that people prefer in the movement, and as i said earlier, it's hella early to start jumping up and down; rand would probably agree with that. and many here question the whole idea of voting, and some IMO make a good case.

Daily Bell: This interview will review material that you've gone over in your books and articles, but we hope you will answer the questions nonetheless as some in our audience are not aware of your works or point of view. But let's start at the beginning. Are you a libertarian? Can you briefly describe the belief structure from which you write?
Paul Craig Roberts: I am a libertarian in the sense that I am certain that there must be moral and constitutional limits on power as exercised by both government and private institutions. I am a conservative in the sense that I believe that reform of society must be piecemeal and based on good will. Progress has to be incremental. Reform cannot be achieved by violent revolution in one fell swoop. - See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/1220/Anthon...


“An important work that refutes the misinterpretations of American history that have misinformed generations about their country, its origins, purposes, successes, and failures. Riveting, highly readable.”
-Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury
you must by now see how silly this whole side argument is, trying to make PCR into some demon just because he wrote what he believed. and i'd imagine rand has much tougher skin than you give him credit for, and as you know things just get uglier and uglier in politics. ron paul has gone on record to say he doesn't like politics. he's all about spreading the message and the numbers grow everyday in helping him do that.

Wish Upon a Star

No one said PCR is a demon. Once again, you must distort the debate to maintain some semblance of reason. As demonstrated earlier in this debate, you were the one who resorted to name calling because your argument fell apart and you are too immature to accept that. That's ok, I understand. And at no time did I "flip out". As I said, I simply brought to your attention that PCR is not who you think he is, but you can't accept that you were wrong about him. It's quite sad really. You keep proving my point by introducing evidence that proves he's not a libertarian.

Funny how you must deflect and not address any of the points I make. That's the sign of someone who has lost an argument but can't admit it.

"even some who love the son but have turned to disrespect for father (i'm guessing because of the differences that keep popping up) i'll let it go at that." For you to suggest that I have somehow disrespected Ron is a new low for you in this debate. And I will leave it at that.

"his articles on anti war and personal liberties are considered to be some of the best written." Considered by whom? You make me laugh.

"it's hella early to start jumping up and down". And again you distort and over exaggerate what I said. I said he has a "chance". How is that jumping up and down? Don't you get tired of misrepresenting people to suit your feeble attempts at an argument?

Your dogged attempt to make PCR into something he is not is very sad. Rand did not deserve the attack. The truth is, PCR is a grumpy old man who is so full of pomposity and hubris, he refused to employ every venue at his disposal to help the good doctor in his two(most recent) presidential runs. That's the truth and it speaks volumes about the man you seem to worship and adore.

Hopefully now, when you watch and read PCR, you will see him for what he really is as opposed to what you wish him to be.

i don't have all morning to

respond to each of your childish bs statements. and anyway,you just keep repeating yourself and avoiding all points i've made, so it's become a bore. i did not mean you disrespected ron, (it's not all about you!) i said "some" sure clint, ron paul, lew rockwell, justin ramondo, tom woods, gerald celente etc are all wrong about PCR (a thinker they all obviously respect) and you, and you alone are right. (sarc) of course they don't agree with everything! i think it's time for you to come down off of that high horse and put that out of control ego in check, but i won't hold my breath. you might also want to bring your fanboy adoration of rand down a notch. it's embarrassing how you refuse to see any contrary opinion. as i said before if you want to have a civil and intelligent exchange, i prefer we take one subject at a time; arguing opinions and jumping all over the map is a waste of time for both of us. if that doesn't work for you, then go harass someone else on this thread. there are plenty more here who have nothing but good things to say about Paul Craig Roberts. BTW i posted this today. http://www.dailypaul.com/314958/9-11-truth-by-dr-paul-craig-...
you're welcome.

All Year Long Sister

"to each of your childish bs statements." to attack them instead of addressing them with an intelligent argument speaks to your character. Of course, you can longer address them because you have realized you're wrong about PCR... just too stubborn to admit it.

"you just keep repeating yourself." When one debates a child, one must endeavor to keep the focus on the debate topic. A sign of a failed argument is when one debate participant must shift the focus away from the topic to hide the fact that they have lost the debate.

"i think it's time for you to come down off of that high horse and put that out of control ego in check." So you have now sunk to a level of attacking my ego when it is your arguments that have proven to be fallacious. How childish...

"as i said before if you want to have a civil and intelligent exchange, i prefer we take one subject at a time; arguing opinions and jumping all over the map is a waste of time for both of us." First you say I keep repeating myself, then you say we are jumping all over the map. So which is it? I have remained focused while you have been jumping all over the place to hide the fact that you have lost this debate. Sad...

"then go harass someone else on this thread." You have intiated the debate with me three separate times on this thread. My gosh. Poor decision on your part. You keep getting your ass handed to you.

Like I said sister, I can do this all year if you like.

DP is my favorite site

DP is my favorite site to visit. usually a pleasure and i look forward to coming here. we have different opinions about PCR. the big difference though is there are a lot of heavy hitters in the liberty movement who agree with me as to the man's worth; regardless i think we've gone around in circles with that one enough. i'm the first to admit it takes two to tango. so, once again if you'd like to move on to another topic for discussion i'm all ears, but if instead you want to remain in the sandbox i too can keep this up as long as you like. i've notice with other posters who dare to disagree you simply command them to "grow up" so clint i hereby challenge you to man up and have an adult exchange, one topic at a time, and to be carried out in a civil tone on both our parts. if this is to go on all year i think it best to set some ground rules.

I love to dance

And once again i debunk every one of your ridiculous claims and you are right on to the next post of complete nonsense.

I've remained on topic through this entire exchange. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even know what the topic is. If you can't remember, just read my posts. I address them in every one. You refuse to address the topic at hand because you know you were wrong about PCR and can't admit it. So we can keep this up until you are mature enough to admit you are wrong. Please choose a topic so I can continue to educate you. Lord knows you need it.

have you ever considered fiction writing?

because you sure like to write it, and then convince yourself that it's fact. i never said PCR was perfect, or always right, when it comes to foreign policy and personal freedom it doesn't get any more libertarian. PCR like a lot of great thinkers are not just one thing despite (your very faulty black/white thinking) and yes he's not afraid to critique some libertarian ideas. you called him a grumpy old man but in the many interviews i watched with him he comes off friendly and with some humor. the exact opposite of you. i am pleased that at least i've convinced you to be a bit more civil in your replies, but you have a ways to go. ron paul always looks for the good in situations, you seem to take the opposite approach. too bad, because you're going to turn off potential liberty movement people who visit here from the left and right investigating. they will definitely be turned off by your know it all attitude and ego. so are you really doing the movement any good? you don't seem to care about the message, and only want to try and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you. since you are the one pounding your chest saying "i can do this all year sister" (just assuming my gender. what ego! what arrogance, so un-ron paul) i think it only fair you pick the topic.

I Hear You Roar

I never claimed you were arguing for the perfection of PCR. You claim him to be a libertarian (of sorts now that you have been made aware of his political beliefs) and a "great thinker". He is neither. I'm not surprised that you are so taken with him. The young are too inexperienced to see through PCR's BS.

The constant inappropriate laughing PCR puts forth in his interviews is clearly a defense mechanism to hide how completely devastated he is to see what has become of his once great country. Unfortunately, he absolves himself of any responsibility. A Keynesian is not someone to be admired. I'll admit, it took me some time to see through his facade. Have you read this book of his...
If not, read it and then tell me what you think of him. Economics is everything sister. If one is not right on that, then one is wrong on most everything.

I'm not assuming your gender. I know you're a woman. It's obvious. Women are incapable of admitting wrong. That's what gave you away.

I am glad to see a woman take an interest in the philosophies. You have much to learn. I'm here to help you in that endeavor, and not to get laid. That's why I'm treating you like a man.

that roaring you hear

is the noise of your confused, and convoluted brain. i have not read that book but here's a review from right here at the DP.

Paul Craig Roberts New Book - Buy It!
Submitted by Treg on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 13:16


Get this BOOK! The book's title is: The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism (no the writer is not for Socialism as you might assume with such a title)

Some better titles for this book would be:

"Private Banking Crooks Own Our Government: Private Profits for Me, Public Losses for YOU Dear Citizen."

.....or .....

"Free Trade Does Not Equal Globalism: Banking Crooks Fleece the Public Using Capitalism Rhetoric"

....or ....

"Off-Shoring Jobs, Absolute Advantage, & Fooling Ourselves with Free Trade Rhetoric"

No matter the title, GET THIS BOOK!!!! Its Awsome! Its a must read! Best of all, its stuffed full of facts that we all need to know.

Its so well done that he nails it in just 174 short pages!

GET THIS BOOK!!!! Buy it now. Lets all get on the same page by reading this book and seek out common solutions fast.



since it's a positive review maybe you'd like to resort back to name calling? how about i read your book? what's that? you don't have one? no surprise there.

i know plenty of women who do not insist on
being right. too bad your experience with the fairer sex is so bad. maybe there's other reasons for that?
i challenged you (on 3 occasions) to pick one topic to discuss in a civil manner. i knew you could never do it, a know it all never could.
so three strikes and you're out clint. you had your chance and blew it, and only proved you're a big scaredy cat.now listen up. if you can't stop your obsessive blather and babble posts to me that's your problem. you've proved to be a fake again and again so i understand you trying to pull yourself out of the hole you dug. go ahead and keep it up. i find it amusing; a mind unraveling at every turn and all because someone dared to criticize your man rand. you know that's the truth but you are way too full of yourself to ever admit it.

"I myself debated most of the Keynesian Nobel prize-winners before university audiences or before annual meetings of economic associations."
Paul Craig Ryan

You make me laugh

First of all, that is not a review. There is no substance. The fact that you would cite that nonsense speaks volumes.

Well I have read it. PCR believes it was a lack of regulation that caused the housing/financial crisis. Perhaps you should try reading books by your idols before you fall down at their altar.

I'm interested in the topic at hand. You are desperate to evade the topic of this thread, you have had to come up with this nonsense of me picking a topic. I see right through your BS. If you are so desperate to change the topic, then do so. I'm fine with sticking to the topics at hand. 1. PCR was not a supporter of Ron and 2. he is not a libertarian.... or have you forgotten?

It's not that he criticized Rand,it's that the criticism is unwarranted. Rand did not call for military action. End of story.

The fact that you would cite that article is frightening.

"Supply-side economics corrects a fundamental mistake in Keynesian economics. Most everyone has heard of supply and demand, but Keynesian economics, known as demand management, left out supply."

You see, PCR believes in a controlled economy. He believes he made Keynesianism 'better'. How did that work out? I remember reading that drivel in '07. Open your eyes woman. You are way out of your league here. If one believes in a planned controlled economy, they are a tyrant. Plain and simple.

Supply Side is a completely discredited economic theory. No one even debates it anymore. There is only one true economy of liberty... Profit, LOSS, no regulations and sound money.

have you forgotten

that rand claims not to be a libertarian?

listen clint, we've been around in circles with this and for you to continue to simply repeat yourself is trollish behavior. if you go through these posts you will not find one instance of me defending his economic ideas. what i was desperate for was to move on (from your character assassination and disagreeable tone )and since we both had had our say about him it simply became monotonous and boring to keep repeating the points. nobody is going to agree with everyone's points all the time but PCR has enough good ones to be respected by a list (i won't repeat) of high level liberty activists, writers and thinkers. you were given three opportunities to move on to another subject and you backed down each time, as i figured you would (one track mind much?), but for some reason you still want to keep the connection. you're convinced i'm a woman so maybe it's some creepy needy thing. i have no interest in being your pen pal, but keep looking sparky, i'm sure there is someone who would like to hear your prattle all day long.


Why would we change the subject? That is what threads are all about... A certain subject/topic in which to discuss. Why would we have a conversation about something other than the topic on this thread? That is the most cowardly thing I have ever seen on DP. That said, I find it amusing watching you squirm.

"Forums have a specific set of jargon associated with them; e.g. a single conversation is called a "thread", or topic."


You initiated debate with me three times on this thread and now on other threads as well. It seems to me I'm living rent free in your head girl. Sounds like a you problem.

A man would have admitted they were in over their head and walked away or conceded defeat.

i know you are but what am i?

now you're just straight up trolling. what's the matter no friends to talk to? gee i wonder why. squirming? that's funny since at this point i see you more as a specimen in a jar; a curious study in obsessive/compulsive, irrational, either/or, and grandiose thinking.

i stand by my two statements that got you all in a tizzy.

1. "PCR is a great libertarian thinker." his massive output on civil liberties and foreign affairs to my mind and others grant him that title. others like yourself do not agree, and you point to his economics which i concede are at odds with libertarian thought.

2. "PCR is pro ron paul" well, look i can only go by what the man says, like his statement that if RP isn't elected the country will fall into tyranny. yes i read his critiques too and i found them written in a spirit of truly wanting RP to win.

i think it's fair to say we covered those two points sufficiently. have you ever watched a debate? they have a beginning, middle and end. you're like a debater who first of all can't stay on topic and secondly refuse to stop long after the debate has ended. look, nobody is right or wrong, although you insist there MUST be. you turned down moving on to other subjects on three occasions, so i can't help but think you are either too chicken or too boneheaded or both.


1. You and the "others" do not get to grant anyone any titles. You're not royalty. You think too highly of yourself. If he is not an Austrian economist, he's not libertarian. Like I said previously, economics is everything.

2. Whether he is pro Ron Paul is not the question. I said he did not support Ron in his presidential endeavors and you fell into a "tizzy" trying to prove he did. Subsequently, I proved he did not. Advising Ron to support the minimum wage is tantamount to asking Ron to commit murder. I have never read such an insulting endorsement for president in my life. Moreover, he was nowhere to be found in '08.

"you turned down moving on to other subjects on three occasions, so i can't help but think you are either too chicken or too boneheaded or both." I ask again, why in the world would we change the subject on a thread? I think I demonstrated in my last post that the notion of having a debate on a topic unrelated to the thread topic is utter nonsense and a clear indication you lost the debate.

I've noticed from your posts, on multiple threads now, that you seem to have a 'need-to-have-the-last-word disorder'. On this topic, you won't get the last word with me sister.

The Non-aggression Principle

The Non-aggression Principle
Learn it.
Live it.
Love it.

The Non-ahole Principle
Learn it.
Live it.
Love it.

i notice on the comments below you gave me the last word when i helped you with your spelling and after you replied i recommended a book by a friend of mine, so it's only fair i let you have the last word here. rand paul might be playing chess but you have just lost a game of checkers.


Your comments grow increasingly delusional with each post.

By supporting PCR, you clearly have no understanding of the NAP. There is no greater aggression on a mass scale than a planned-economy and that is precisely what PCR supports and you by extension. Of course, you don't know any of this because you haven't read his books. You just think you know everything when it is quite clear you are lacking in mental faculties.

Resorting to childish name-calling, I see. The last refuge of a simple mind. Not surprising...

Your desperate attempts to change the subject prove, unequivocally, that you lost. You even proved my point for me on several occasions with your incessant PCR links that only served to reinforce my points. When one loses a debate, they should do so gracefully. You, Madam, are without grace.

And Rand lovers are about the

And Rand lovers are about the stupidest, most hypocritical fucks out there. They're pathetic to even listen to. ANY criticism of their dear idol is confronted with zealous fighting in his defense. He ain't Jesus Christ you know. You can call him out when he's being a fucking dumbass.

Grow Up

You confuse rhetoric with principal. Rand is not our idol. He's a chance to fulfill what Ron started... The Liberty Movement. You guys get so upset by rhetoric. All politicians must use a certain parlance. Grow up.

The fact that you received up votes while using such language speaks volumes about the character of the Rand-Haters.

did you mean principle?

rather than principal? so 2 up votes speaks volumes? LOL

as far as i'm concerned ron paul is still at the helm of the freedom/liberty movement. rand, i think, will in the end do very well with regular republicans and the tea party, but he'll need more than that to win, and IMO pandering to everyone else in sight is not going to do the trick. a lot of people are looking for someone who tells it straight, and comes off honest and trustworthy (like his dad). some see that in rand, other do not. regardless, 2016 is still a good ways off.


It was 5 up-votes when I wrote that comment. You see, that number frequently changes. /sarc

This is the third conversation on the same thread... come on.

Once again, coming to the defense of the indefensible.

you have a problem

defending the indefensible?

here's a book recommendation:

so 5 is volumes? come on...

conversation? that's a stretch.

Glass Houses and all that

..Who's drinking the political-kool-aid now?

And what's with the "Paul CRAIG Roberts" monicker?
...it's almost like a "John Wayne Gacy label".
(serial killers) LOL!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

and i have and i will

i'll also call out the doom and gloom, all hope is lost, we should just give up and hide in the bunker crowd too.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

It has nothing to do with

It has nothing to do with running away and hiding. It's understanding what you naive though well-meaning folks haven't matured enough to understand. Liberty ain't gonna come through some messianic figure who takes the helm in Washington and magically restores Constitutional government. It's going to be through peaceful secession FROM it. It'll be taking a cue from Venice, Scotland, the Basque regions, etc. It'll be taking a cue from our revolutionary ancestors who seceded from England.

All hope of restoring some form of "just" government in Washington that'll somehow rule righteously over 350 million people is just as utopian as the socialist worldview.

funny, here's his piece on snowden

and it doesn't correspond to your take at all, in fact just the opposite:


Sounds like PCR is in the pessimistic mood. I know I have been during the GOP caucus season. $10 delegate fees for county, $60 dollar fees for state. And state has cost travels to Boulder. I need a new car am moving next month. Don't think I can afford to go to State but will still go to county.

Michael Nystrom's picture

On foreign policy, Rand Paul makes no sense

This is a good article. It should be its own post, but I don't feel like enduring the downvotes of the Rah Rah Randers right now. I've got better things than that to do, but I appreciate people not allowing this to become a big echo chamber, or filter bubble.


By Jay Bookman

Rand Paul has a serious problem, and he has no idea how to fix it.

The problem is apparent in an op-ed that the Kentucky senator published Monday in Time magazine, in which he attempted to depict himself as a future President Paul before whom other world leaders, especially Vladimir Putin, would quake in fear. To put it mildly, the effort was unconvincing.

Paul did try. Let the record show that he tried. As he put it valiantly in his conclusion:

"The real problem is that Russia’s president is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s president, despite his country’s blatant aggression.

But let me be clear: If I were president, I wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin get away with it."

Oh? And what exactly would a President Paul do to ensure that Putin didn't "get away with it?" He is already on record as advocating a much less aggressive foreign policy and has also proposed cuts in defense spending even deeper than those imposed by the sequestration process. As he notes in his Time article, "America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM.... Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke."

Stirring stuff, huh?


All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

I had your filter bubble post in mind

when I posted this

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thank you

I appreciate that. Very much. More than you know.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.