It purports to be a well-sourced factual takedown relying mostly on quotes. Molyneux made a website for it with a detailed table of contents and a long list of sources with links.
One of the issues, "Texas Values", discusses the Michael Wayne Haley court case. Here's what Molyneux says:
And he has two sources for this:
The Brutalism of Ted Cruz from The New York Times, a leftist propaganda rag that hates Cruz, and which can't be trusted after getting caught in so many lies. And, second, David Brooks’ (Slightly) Unfair Attack on Ted Cruz which basically agrees with the first article.
When I google for "cruz prosecute haley" (without quotes), the articles Molyneux used come up first and sixth. What Molyneux ignored is the second google hit:
David Brooks’ Dirty Hit On Ted Cruz: How Pundits Lose Credibility
Both articles Molyneux links are light on details. But this one is a detailed scholarly refutation of the position Molynex repeated straight from the New York Times. Why did Molyneux ignore it?
Molyneux is offensively dishonest because he pretends to be a scholar. He didn't just make a video attacking Cruz. He put together a big list of sources in order to lie to people that he'd done a bunch of proper research. He hadn't. He just looked for one-sided ways to smear Cruz no matter how false they were. There's no excuse for missing the second google hit on the topic. (Which also comes up on the first page of google results for a variety of other search terms I tried.)
I also dislike the sneaky claim that Cruz was "just following orders". That is not something Cruz said, nor is it what the Cruz defender I linked at Ethics Alarms said. It's just Molyneux dishonestly trying to call Rob Garver a Cruz defender (the guy from his second source who wrote, "Yet it’s hard to argue with many of [Brooks'] conclusions."). Molyneux is pretending to give both sides of the issue, but he just attacks Cruz twice and attributes one of the attacks to Cruz defenders, while ignoring Cruz's actual defenders.
Messages (7)
Change his mind.
Stefan Molyneux is Ayn Rand fan too. Why don't you correct him & see if he changed his mind ? He talks to many people on his talk show too. He might talk to you as well.
Liking Ayn Rand is not the same as being willing to correct mistakes.
Conversation in front of an audience is not a good venue for critical discussion. E-mail would be better.
> Liking Ayn Rand is not the same as being willing to correct mistakes.
> Conversation in front of an audience is not a good venue for critical > discussion. E-mail would be better.
He says he is a rational person who listens to reason. He might change his mind.
He doesn't act rational. Stop being a shill for people just cuz ur gullible. A million people say they are rational. That's worthless.
If you think he's so great, talk to him yourself.
Socialism seems inevitable. I just don't want libertarians, Objectivists and other free market advocates to fight among themselves over a few differences and hand over the victory to socialists.
Then start by educating yourself on Objectivism, economics, liberalism, etc. And on the differences between factions.
FI Post
>Then start by educating yourself on Objectivism, economics, liberalism, >etc. And on the differences between factions.
I am reading the FI post on Libertarians plagiarizing Ayn Rand.