Patterico's Pontifications

3/19/2014

Troll TimB Infests Tom Woods’s Blog, Provides Excellent Example of How the Left Tries to Shut Down Speech

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:44 pm

On his last day on this Earth, Andrew Breitbart tweeted this (h/t Brandon Darby):

I would normally not devote a post to creepy now-banned troll TimB, but his behavior in attacking me and libertarian Tom Woods recently is a wonderful example of an attempt to shut down speech, and is worth highlighting as Exhibit A in what the left would do if given total power.

The contretemps appears to have started with my recent post defending Judge Andrew Napolitano, and citing a Tom Woods video to do so. TimB starting tweeting a bunch of nonsense at me, and then turned his ignorant fire on Woods:

“Secessionist”! Thus ends the argument! Label your opponent and dismiss him. (By the way, Tim’s link goes here. I challenge you to read that, and Woods’s response, and not conclude that Woods shredded Max Boot.)

If by “secessionist” TimB means “one who believes that states have the right to secede” then Woods is absolutely guilty. And so am I. In fact, I have enjoyed talking about secession on this blog for several reasons.

First, as I have learned more about the founding of this country, I have become convinced that states retained the right to secede.

Second, as my frustration with the oppressive and reckless federal government increases, I search for solutions other than sitting around waiting for the fiscal collapse. This one — saving the parts of the country that can be saved and breaking off from the United States — is not particularly realistic, but the option of doing nothing is so unthinkable that unrealistic options seem worth discussing.

Also, I just enjoy tweaking the TimBs of the world. To me, the idea that the federal government is the perfect sized political unit, and that a smaller political unit is SIMPLY UNTHINKABLE!!!!, is absurd. Yet one cannot discuss the concept without being called a racist, or a “Neo-confederate.” Witness:

And, since it’s TimB, there have to be lies:

I am not, in fact, a “convert to nullification.” In fact, I recently wrote a friend about the topic, and after speaking about the things I liked about the doctrine and the things I hated about it, I concluded: “I’m not sure how I feel about state nullification” of federal laws thought to be unconstitutional. I haven’t ruled out support for it, but it strikes me as posing a threat to the rule of law. My plan is to eventually read Woods’s book on it and make up my mind.

TimB’s behavior is a wonderful performative of the left’s behavior: name-calling, dismissiveness, and dishonesty — all in an effort to shut down debate. TimB didn’t draw the line at Twitter, either. He infested one of Woods’s blog post comment sections (sorry, Tom!) thus prompting Woods to write a whole post about TimB’s comment behavior, titled Internet Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again.

Tom, just ban him, like I do.

Anyway, the perfect response to folks like TimB is this video, which Woods created some time back as an amusing vehicle for his arguments in favor of state nullification of federal laws. It is called “Interview with a Zombie.” In case you don’t get it, TimB is the zombie in our example. Enjoy:

I showed it to my kids and they cracked up when the zombie says: “Slavery?” Watch it. It’s worth your time.

I hope I am doing my small part to carry on Andrew’s battle against P.C. He is missed.

32 Responses to “Troll TimB Infests Tom Woods’s Blog, Provides Excellent Example of How the Left Tries to Shut Down Speech”

  1. The debate between Woods and the zombie is like every argument I have ever had with a fringe leftist on this blog.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. timmah is a waste of protoplasm.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  3. intrastate secessions seem like the more better way to go at least for now

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  4. happy, as a practical matter, giving Los Angeles more power to be, well, Los Angeles . . . I just can’t say I’m for that.

    I should be able to enjoy the weather and the area I live in without having my life turned upside down by these morons.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  5. I search for solutions other than sitting around waiting for the fiscal collapse. This one — saving the parts of the country that can be saved and breaking off from the United States — is not particularly realistic, but the option of doing nothing is so unthinkable that unrealistic options seem worth discussing.

    America 3.0 discusses some options along this line.

    My own review is here. They discuss rearranging political entities with some states breaking up and others sharing some institutions like universities.

    It’s worth reading. Of course, they acknowledge that the US has to take a “haircut” before any of the solutions can work. That means repudiation of a lot of debt and obligations, like pensions.

    MikeK (cd7278)

  6. Patterico – But if ethnic Angelenos like the ethnic Russians in Crimea decide their destiny lies in governing themselves like morons, who are the minority to stand in the way of their right of self-determination. Ask Former Conservative, for gosh sakes, he’s smarter than all of us put together and a world authority on these matters.

    I in no way intend to demean the ethnic Russian people of the Crimea by comparing them to the majority moron Angelenos.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  7. Of course, they acknowledge that the US has to take a “haircut” before any of the solutions can work. That means repudiation of a lot of debt and obligations, like pensions.

    The guy coming to give us the “haircut” is swinging an axe and he’s aiming about 12 inches too low.

    But that’s the medicine we need. I just worry it will kill us. But we’re dead anyway.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  8. Andrew is missed. Timb is not.

    SPQR (768505)

  9. Funny how that works, eh, SPQR?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  10. I liked the Interview with a Zombie. Woods is effective and entertaining. I also like the “duty to resist.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  11. Failifornia in general, and Lost Angels in particular may not have invented “stuck on stupid”, but we are apparently bound & determined to perfect it…

    i blame reusable grocery sacks, HOV lanes and designer jeans for this, as well as Mr. Feets.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  12. i kinda like the idea of city-states really

    not that I think Los Angeles would be a superlative example of one such

    but I’m not vested in failifornia or los angeles in any meaningful way

    at some point i have to bail

    the taxes, they are too many

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  13. what we need is a taco equality tax!

    for the chilrens…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  14. mr. red you remindered me I have a friend being hounded by the fascist apparatchiks of los angeles for taxes he couldn’t possibly owe as he was only a 1099 employee for two months in 2006

    he dumped the papers on me today for to sort out this week

    i really really hate these losers

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  15. the apparatchiks, meaning

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  16. that may be a city business license tax issue… of which i know a little about, having researched it myself, during which i discovered i needed one myself, which could have been expensive had i not been curious.

    lemme know if i can help off line: IANAL, but i do know one, besides Patterico, of course. 8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  17. Mr. Feets – Move to Minnesota for the always tasty walleye on a stick.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. thank you – I haven’t looked at the papers yet

    last time i just had to make a call i hope this time is just a glitch

    if you live in burbank you avoid all this crap

    is my understanding

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  19. Minneapolis is definitely an option

    and I love Des Moines too

    but I need to occupy myself here until I break up with my orthodontist

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  20. I am not, in fact, a “convert to nullification.” In fact, I recently wrote a friend about the topic, and after speaking about the things I liked about the doctrine and the things I hated about it, I concluded: “I’m not sure how I feel about state nullification” of federal laws thought to be unconstitutional. I haven’t ruled out support for it, but it strikes me as posing a threat to the rule of law. My plan is to eventually read Woods’s book on it and make up my mind.

    When I saw the word “nullification”, my first thought was jury nullification. Of course, you were talking about something else, but it did make me curious. Where does Patterico stand on jury nullification? My off the top of my head thought is that since you are a prosecutor, you will be against them. But, in my view, jury nullification is an important check on government, and given your other views, you may surprise me.

    What say you?

    Anon Y. Mous (8ec442)

  21. 19. Des Moines is nice, warmer than MN.

    Do not move near the river.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  22. Let’s do this: Los Angeles can secede, but they have to take on Santa Monica and Malibu and leave behind San Pedro and the Harbor area. I think that would be best for everyone.

    JVW (9946b6)

  23. Apparently adding neo- to whatever is the new shorthand for leftist sneering and dishonesty. It seems to be a marker for them, after which they can just call you racist, claim you support slavery, or are waging war against women.

    JD (9c73be)

  24. A) TimB is an idiot, but we all knew that.

    B) No, Tom Woods did not “shred” Boot’s arguments. Woods’ reliance on Jefferson’s discredited (and never adapted) doctrine of nullification doesn’t give his arguments any weight. In fact Madison completely opposed Jefferson’s idea, even though both are bizarrely and incorrectly often labeled as proponents of the doctrine.

    Woods’s interpretation of early American political thought leaves much to be desired, and I’ll leave it at that.

    Paul Zummo (77ff47)

  25. Paul Zummo,

    No, please don’t leave it at that. Give us some links and arguments.

    My honest impression is that Woods tore Boot apart. If you have fact-based arguments to the contrary, with links to back up your assertions, I think we would be interested to hear you out. That would be better than the TimB “label and sneer” form of “argument.”

    If Woods is distorting history, let’s hear about it.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  26. Apparently adding neo- to whatever is the new shorthand for leftist sneering and dishonesty. It seems to be a marker for them, after which they can just call you racist, claim you support slavery, or are waging war against women.

    If you go to the post that TimB infested at Woods’s blog, you will see TimB is the living manifestation of the zombie in that video. His entire argument for dozens of comments is pointing fingers and saying RACISM and SLA-VER-Y and NEE-OH-CON-FEDERATE!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  27. I didn’t say that Woods is necessarily distorting history. As a matter of fact, he is right about what Jefferson believed. The problem is using Jefferson as a bulwark in favor of an argument in favor of nullification is as mistaken as using Jefferson as the ultimate interpreter of the first amendment and the wall of separation. Jefferson’s viewoint was not necessarily shared by the majority of Framers, and in fact was decidedly rebuked by James Madison, who is a more authoritative voice on the Constitution.

    Madison penned the Virginia Resolutions at the same time as Jefferson penned the draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, and the VA Resolutions were much milder in tone. Madison did not argue for nullification, but rather for “interposition,” which really amounted to several states coming together to formally protest perceived unconstitutional amendments.

    As to nullification, Madison expressly argued that such a right did not exist. Remember, he was still alive during the Jackson administration and so wrote on this issue. Here is a link to his thoughts on nullification, written in 1834. Madison wrote elsewhere about nullification, but I apologize as I just don’t have those exact dates committed to memory, but could look them up later for you. Oddly enough I’ve seen this exact letter being used to argue the point that Madison actually supports nullification, but Madison merely concedes – as I think anyone living at the time in American history had to – that as a last resort there is a right to revolution, but Madison is pretty clear (IMO) that he does not think nullification is justified.

    Now it’s possible to argue that Madison was wrong and Jefferson right, and you’re free to make that argument. But I’d just note that Madison was directly involved in crafting the Constitution whereas Jefferson was not.

    Finally I’d link my dissertation, but for some reason you gotta spend $100 to buy it online, so I’m not gonna do that. I’d love to pursue this conversation in greater detail down the line, though I think I’ve used up all my free time for the day. I will say that perhaps I came off as too harsh against Mr. Woods, as it’s really just a matter of historical disagreement, and frankly I don’t really have any desire to defend Max Boot, so I’ll take back some of what I said. But I do think that on this narrow issue Woods is wrong.

    Paul Zummo (77ff47)

  28. Woods addresses Madison’s objections in his FAQ in response to TimB’s trolling: Internet Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again

    “James Madison spoke against the idea of nullification.”

    More sophisticated opponents think they have a trump card in James Madison’s statements in 1830 to the effect that he never intended, in the Virginia Resolutions or at any other time, to suggest that a state could resist the enforcement of an unconstitutional law. Anyone who holds that he did indeed call for such a thing has merely misunderstood him. He was saying only that the states had the right to get together to protest unconstitutional laws.

    This claim falls flat. In 1830 Madison did indeed say such a thing, and pretended he had never meant what everyone at the time had taken him to mean. Madison’s claim was greeted with skepticism. People rightly demanded to know: if that was all you meant, why even bother drafting such an inane and feckless resolution in the first place? Why go to the trouble of passing solemn resolutions urging that the states had a right that absolutely no one denied? And for heaven’s sake, when numerous states disputed your position, why in the Report of 1800 did you not only not clarify yourself, but you actually persisted in the very view you now deny and which everyone attributed to you at the time? Madison biographer Kevin Gutzman (see James Madison and the Making of America, St. Martin’s, 2012) dismantled this toothless interpretation of Madison’s Virginia Resolutions in “A Troublesome Legacy: James Madison and ‘The Principles of ’98,’” Journal of the Early Republic 15 (1995): 569-89. Judge Abel Upshur likewise made quick work of this view in An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, excerpted in my book.

    The elder Madison, in his zeal to separate nullification from Jefferson’s legacy, tried denying that Jefferson had included the dreaded word in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions. Madison had seen the draft himself, so he either knew this statement was false or was suffering from the effects of advanced age. When a copy of the original Kentucky Resolutions in Jefferson’s own handwriting turned up, complete with the word “nullification,” Madison was forced to retreat.

    In summary, then, (1) the other state legislatures understood Madison in 1798 as saying precisely what Madison later tried to deny he had said; (2) Madison did not correct this alleged misunderstanding when he had the chance to in the Report of 1800 or at any other time during those years; and (3) the text of the Virginia Resolutions clearly indicates that each state was “duty bound” to maintain its constitutional liberties within its “respective” territory, and hence Madison did indeed contemplate action by a single state (rather than by all the states jointly), as supporters and opponents alike took him to be saying at the time.

    ropelight (bc462c)

  29. Patterico, yep, funny that … ** sigh **

    SPQR (768505)

  30. Sounds like left wing lunatic Timb didn’t get enough love as a child.
    But that’s something that a person can rebound from.
    Unfortunately, it also sounds like Timb is not getting enough love as an adult.
    And that’s problematic. Or whatever.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  31. OMG–I loved it and cracked up at the slavery comment, too.

    Nothing like humor to address an argument.

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  32. Love it, but just a comment that in order to give the correct zombie look, one need only apply a greyish tint to the skin which removes color, then darken the eyes. The zombie in the video looks more like a clown.

    Denver Todd (123e7a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2938 secs.