What are libertarians?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

 

[Bfgrn]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

So even though he talked exactly like a white supremacist, Lincoln didn't really mean it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Critical thinking is just not your thing. Find an adult to read and decipher it for you. I guess it is way beyond your cognitive abilities.

Making excuses for the despicable behavior of your tarnished heroes is your thing.

Bottom line: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Lincoln talked just like a white supremacist his entire life. Until the final days of his presidency he was trying to devise a scheme to ship off all the blacks to Africa.

Yeah, now there's an angel for ya.

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

 

[bripat9643]

I myself am no longer a minarchist because I do not believe that any government can be restrained in such a way for any sustained period of time.

I laways found this stance of yours interesting because, while it is factually correct, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, government does not remain caged as it loves nothing more than to increase its own power BUT neither does anarchism. That, ALSO, does not remain as it naturally degrades into some form of government. The real question is NOT what permanent form of government (or lack thereof) can be established but rather what is the best form to try and hold onto for as long as possible.

In that I believe government is a clear necessity. Nothing is permanent. A good government or anarchy is not exempt from that simple natural fact.

Well your question rests on the assumption that that is my only reason for no longer being a minarchist, which is not unreasonable since that's the only reason I gave in the post you quoted. Regardless, I also reject the initiation of force in even a limited sense. The simple fact of the matter is that even a minarchist libertarian's dream government must still rest on the use of violence against their own citizens, and others should that government ever go to war. So even if we had the U.S. government explicitly outlined in the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government would still tax Americans to fund itself. In other words, it would steal the property of Americans.

In response to your concerns, however, I would merely say that the argument that anarchism will inevitably lead to the creation of a state, so we might as well just create the state now isn't all that inspiring. However, my view is that society will inevitably evolve in their thought towards anarchism as the brutality of the state, even the much touted democratic state, perhaps the most blood-soaked form of government in history, becomes clearer and clearer. I don't see so much a violent revolution finally and permanently overthrowing the state, because I think if that's what was attempted it would simply fail, but assuming it did succeed I think your concerns would ultimately be validated. Using force to overthrow the state will inevitably lead to a new state, in my opinion. If, however, the state is simply allowed to die out as people stop supporting it then I see that as the ultimate good for society.

I actually agree with what you are saying in premise - that anarchy would be best WHEN mankind evolves society to a point where we no longer need it. BUT, and it is a huge but, we are not there yet. RIGHT now I think such is simply not tennable and good government (or the best that we can do) is what we need to be working on. I doubt that man will ever get to the point where we can cast off the yoke of government but I do believe that right now such a vacuum of power only leads to one thing - the strong taking up that space.


A good government takes up that hole with as little infringement in rights as possible while preventing others from entirely removing those rights. IOW, a MUCH better outcome IMHO.

Is it ideal? No. Ideal does not exist. Avoiding trying to set up proper government for now is certainly better than allowing current situations run roughshod all over our freedom because anarchy is an ideal that people and society simply is not ready for yet.

Of course you likely disagree with my premise, that people are not ready yet, but I think that history shows this to be the case. Anarchy does not last long and is usually hallmarked with the ever present threat of local warlords running things - aka the strong removing the rights of the weak.

Well I think the fact that society isn't ready is self-evident, as the state has yet to fall of its own accord. Regardless, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out that this is the best possible outcome for society. In the meantime we can absolutely be pragmatists, but we shouldn't lose sight of the real goal.

If you're expecting the dumb masses to see ever the light, then society will never be ready. Once it's a fait accompli, then it will be self perpetuating. It has to be accomplished piecemeal, by secession. only a functioning anarchist society that can demonstrate the advantages of abolishing the monopoly on compulsion will ever convince the dolts that it's feasible and desirable.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Ad hominems are his stock in trade. You didn't really expect logic, did you? If libturds were capable of logic, they wouldn't be libturds. A logical libturd is as unthinkable as an honest politician.

 

[Bfgrn]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Hostility?

How are laws enforced now? Very poorly. People's property rights are violated every day along with their basic rights to life, liberty and happiness.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Hostility?

How are laws enforced now? Very poorly. People's property rights are violated every day along with their basic rights to life, liberty and happiness.

The prime violator of property rights is the federal government.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.

You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.

 

[Bfgrn]

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.

You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.

I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.

You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.

I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.

Then why not pop back into the education thread, retract your statements and we can proceed afresh?

 

[bripat9643]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

So even though he talked exactly like a white supremacist, Lincoln didn't really mean it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Critical thinking is just not your thing. Find an adult to read and decipher it for you. I guess it is way beyond your cognitive abilities.

Making excuses for the despicable behavior of your tarnished heroes is your thing.

Bottom line: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Lincoln talked just like a white supremacist his entire life. Until the final days of his presidency he was trying to devise a scheme to ship off all the blacks to Africa.

Yeah, now there's an angel for ya.

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

He didn't evolve one iota. He remained a white supremacist to his dying day. He was also a master magician at fooling the dumb masses such as yourself. Until the very last days of his presidency he was busily working on a scheme to send all black back to Africa:

Lincoln s Racial Views 8211 LewRockwell.com

As president, he allocated millions of dollars to a project that would “colonize” American blacks in Liberia. In 1862 he held a meeting with several dozen free black men in the White House at which he explained to them that, because of the inherent differences between the white and black races, they could never live together, and so he urged them to lead by example and colonize themselves in Liberia. In what sounds like it could have been taken directly from the pages of Types of Mankind, Lincoln informed the black men that “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both,” and “affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate” (Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men,” August 14, 1862, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, Vol. 2, 1859-1866 (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 354.

Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed by Thomas DiLorenzo

Late in his life General Benjamin Butler recalled a "colonization interview" that he had with Lincoln two days before the assassination. "What shall we do with the negroes after they are free?", Lincoln is said to have asked the general. According to Butler, Lincoln then said, "I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes" (p. 109). Butler then proposed deporting the freed slaves to Panama to dig a canal, decades before the actual Panama Canal was dug. "There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that," Lincoln reportedly said.

Lincoln was a white supremacist until the day he died. The facts are irrefutable.

 

[Pogo]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Ad hominems are his stock in trade. You didn't really expect logic, did you? If libturds were capable of logic, they wouldn't be libturds. A logical libturd is as unthinkable as an honest politician.

Want me to post your list too, FingerBoy Coward?

It'll be easy....

 

[Pogo]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

So even though he talked exactly like a white supremacist, Lincoln didn't really mean it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Critical thinking is just not your thing. Find an adult to read and decipher it for you. I guess it is way beyond your cognitive abilities.

Making excuses for the despicable behavior of your tarnished heroes is your thing.

Bottom line: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Lincoln talked just like a white supremacist his entire life. Until the final days of his presidency he was trying to devise a scheme to ship off all the blacks to Africa.

Yeah, now there's an angel for ya.

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

Don't change the story. Are you actually now believing your lies? Have you told them so frequently that you've forgotten how you plagiarized a Nazi website, not the two books, and you didn't lint the plagiarized text you passed as your own? Is that why you're so stubbornly resisting admitting your plagiarism, because you've now come to believe the lies you've told to defend yourself?

 

[bripat9643]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

So even though he talked exactly like a white supremacist, Lincoln didn't really mean it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Critical thinking is just not your thing. Find an adult to read and decipher it for you. I guess it is way beyond your cognitive abilities.

Making excuses for the despicable behavior of your tarnished heroes is your thing.

Bottom line: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Lincoln talked just like a white supremacist his entire life. Until the final days of his presidency he was trying to devise a scheme to ship off all the blacks to Africa.

Yeah, now there's an angel for ya.

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

 

[bripat9643]

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

Don't change the story. Are you actually now believing your lies? Have you told them so frequently that you've forgotten how you plagiarized a Nazi website, not the two books, and you didn't lint the plagiarized text you passed as your own? Is that why you're so stubbornly resisting admitting your plagiarism, because you've now come to believe the lies you've told to defend yourself?

Po-po is a lying despicable asshole. He will stop at nothing in his campaign to smear the political opposition.

He's the perfect liberal, on other words!

 

[bripat9643]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Ad hominems are his stock in trade. You didn't really expect logic, did you? If libturds were capable of logic, they wouldn't be libturds. A logical libturd is as unthinkable as an honest politician.

Want me to post your list too, FingerBoy Coward?

It'll be easy....

What "list" are you referring to?

 

[bripat9643]

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

Don't change the story. Are you actually now believing your lies? Have you told them so frequently that you've forgotten how you plagiarized a Nazi website, not the two books, and you didn't lint the plagiarized text you passed as your own? Is that why you're so stubbornly resisting admitting your plagiarism, because you've now come to believe the lies you've told to defend yourself?

Notice how the libs don't hesitate to accuse you of being a racist and even a Nazi simply because you post facts about their sainted heroes that can't be denied?

I despise liberals because they are lower than whale shit. Scratch a liberal and underneath you'll find a goosestepping Nazi.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

The problem with those who condemn the likes of Bachmann, Levin, Palin, Beck et al are that they buy into the idea that such people are extreme and a bit looney tunes--that certainly IS the drum beat mantra of the Left--but in fact, they have a difficult time coming up with any specifics to make that case. I don't know of any social or political views that any of those people hold that would disqualify them from being libertarian (little "L") Now do some have a different perspective of history or interpret things differently than other people do or have some ideas that might be considered fringe? Yes some do, but then pretty much everybody does. Sometimes I agree with them on the sociopolitical stuff and sometimes I don't. I have a tougher time catching Levin in a factual error though--in fact I'm not sure I ever have. And trust, me I try with everybody. But all of them qualify in every way as libertarian (little "L")

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson--Libertarians with a capital "L"? I am quite fond of both individuals--know Gary personally in fact--but I have a lot more problem with their point of view about several sociopolitical stances than I do Bachmann, Levin, Palin, or Beck. But all of them are good people.

But getting back to the point Kaz made in the OP, libertarians (little "L") are not opposed to government. Every single one, including those I've named here, know that some government is necessary to hold the 50 states together as one nation and that some laws and regulation are necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the individual and to prevent those in the 50 states from doing physical, economic, environmental, or cultural violence to each other.

Certainly the central government should do what has to be done and that the various states CANNOT do without assuming improper authority over each other.

But the central government should do nothing that the states, local communities, and/or private sector CAN do whether they do it or not.

 

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Wasn't talking about you, Finger Boy. Hate to break this to you but you're hardly the only liar here. Take a number.