Are Libertarians Racist? Salon thinks so.....

[steveh_131]

Someone who claims that secession in 1860 was not based, in overwhelmingly large measure, on maintaining a system that subjugated a people based upon race so that their stolen lives and labor could be used to prop up an inherently corrupt economy? They may not be racists, but they're cozying up to people who are....and they've let their faith in secession overwhelm any notion of logic that they may have once had.

We were debating the history of events. Not the superiority of a race.

There is a lot of propaganda surrounding the civil war. One can reject the propaganda without being a racist or rejecting logic.

 

[jamil]

What makes one person's source propaganda and another's source not?

 

[KG1]

I never did like Lincoln.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think I heard that too. But I thought he also put it in context of "at the time". But I think the whole thing was him walking back statements he originally made disparaging the CRA of 1964. Rather than him walking it back, I wish he'd just stand up to what he believed.

I think the CRA oversteps the government's constitutional authority. It shouldn't have the authority to create extraspecial classes of people. It shouldn't have the authority to tell people who they should serve. And it is not racist at all to believe that if the reason you believe it has nothing to do with race.

If that's what Rand Paul believes then he should say that.

I agree with all of this.

Unfortunately, it's so ingrained into our psyche, I think we've lost a huge portion of our property rights forever.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's quite possible I've misremembered, I'm told frequently I have the memory of a goldfish (but I love my wife). But do you have a link?

As I mentioned earlier (I think your wife is correct ), no link, just my memory (which is not like a goldfish but as my wife will attest, is very, very, very, very selective).

 

[Woobie]

What makes one person's source propaganda and another's source not?

Whether you agree with the source or not. It's a very scientific means of determination.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What makes one person's source propaganda and another's source not?

Nothing. Although any attempt to quote history is pretty much propaganda. The winner writes the history. And in Lincoln's case the victor wrote the history and it's not good.

As I mentioned earlier (I think your wife is correct ), no link, just my memory (which is not like a goldfish but as my wife will attest, is very, very, very, very selective).

Sorry that was a misquote. I meant to ask Jamil who stated he remembered the same. So not only do I have the memory of a goldfish, I have the quoting skills of the same.... And yes my wife is always correct, just ask her.

 

[steveh_131]

What makes one person's source propaganda and another's source not?

That's exactly what we're debating. Which history is correct?

My argument is that pointing out that the winner's side may be propaganda is not racist, nor does it align you with racists.

 

[indiucky]

I never did like Lincoln.

He killed many a vampire back in the day...Gotta give credit where credit is due....

 

[HoughMade]

We were debating the history of events. Not the superiority of a race.

There is a lot of propaganda surrounding the civil war. One can reject the propaganda without being a racist or rejecting logic.

One can not logically claim an economic basis for the war, then ignore the basis of the southern economy.

...and I never called a person who supported historical secession a racist.

 

[steveh_131]

...and I never called a person who supported historical secession a racist.

Yes but some folks did. That's what we're discussing right now.

 

[rhino]

He killed many a vampire back in the day...Gotta give credit where credit is due....

And zombies. Don't forget the zombies. Racist, secessionist zombies.

 

[KG1]

He killed many a vampire back in the day...Gotta give credit where credit is due....

Well yeah..There is that. But other than that. Meh.

 

[Cerberus]

Nothing. Although any attempt to quote history is pretty much propaganda. The winner writes the history. And in Lincoln's case the victor wrote the history and it's not good.



Sorry that was a misquote. I meant to ask Jamil who stated he remembered the same. So not only do I have the memory of a goldfish, I have the quoting skills of the same.... And yes my wife is always correct, just ask her.

What happens when you read the losers history that was published in 1866 and know for fact from a lot of personal unprinted journals both north and south, that the losers version is farther from the truth than the winners? Face it, when it comes to Civil War history, the south was politically dominated by aristocrats, aristocrats that owned human property (an abhorrent practice), stated in at least 11 ordinances of secession that slavery was either the 1st or 2nd listed reason, actively lied to the population to get them to fight, then when the population quickly stopped wanting to fight the invader forced service and this was before their conscription act, wrote a national constitution that outlawed slavery from being outlawed EVER, courted foreign powers to fight with them, ..........I really could go on, but I'm sure it will be a waste of time. The South was wrong, Lincoln while a bit heavy handed was correct in his intents. Oh the cruelty, those shady Yankees allowed the poor southern elites tell their story and freely publish the rather large tome.

Trivia contest... Can anyone name the one southern state that did not have at least one white Union regiment?

 

[Denny347]

Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.

He opposes gay marriage, which is a political and philosophical impossibility for a Libertarian.

He is pretty Libertarian'ish. While I do not agree with all his stances, I agree with more of them than any other candidate. The same goes for those in the Libertarian party and I'm pretty Libertarian when it comes to politics. No, he is not a true Libertarian. He IS a real conservative, problem is that the Conservative Party has gotten so far away from those ideals that he looks like a Libertarian in comparison.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Same old song and dance. If you repeat it enough....it still isn't true.

Oh it's true. Or are you admitting that Republicans destroyed the republic? Lincoln was, as far as presidents go, one of the biggest tyrants there was. I personally believe that if he were alive today, he'd be a Democrat. So which way do would you like to go?
The switch between the platforms of the two parties is a very basic political historical understanding. I really don't see why people deny it. 50 years ago the vast majority of the south identified as Democrat, today they identify as republicans. So tell me please, what happened for so many people to change parties?

 

[Woobie]

I think tyrant is a strong word for Lincoln. Quite strong, really. However, he at times was no friend of Liberty. Of course, it's also hard to think of someone being against Liberty when that same person emancipated millions and abolished slavery.

As far as the causation for southern states going from blue to red goes, there are many. But to say the Republican Party became racist and made up of racists (as the context of your statement implies, and I could be reading it wrong) seems a bit of a stretch. The Democrat politicians who were staunch racists didn't change parties. In fact some are still in power or only very recently retired / deceased. But where is the evidence of current racism among mainstream republicans. Both sides have racist voters, to be sure.

 

[Bennettjh]

 

[oldpink]

Can we all just put aside all the incessant squabbling for just one post and agree that the one true enemy here is the ever execrable Salon.com?
Only the moonbattiest of moonbats like that snakepit.

 

[oldpink]

Oh it's true. Or are you admitting that Republicans destroyed the republic? Lincoln was, as far as presidents go, one of the biggest tyrants there was. I personally believe that if he were alive today, he'd be a Democrat. So which way do would you like to go?
The switch between the platforms of the two parties is a very basic political historical understanding. I really don't see why people deny it. 50 years ago the vast majority of the south identified as Democrat, today they identify as republicans. So tell me please, what happened for so many people to change parties?

I'll say it one more time, since you can't help yourself parroting your Dem agitprop: Why do you have this mistaken belief that racists can't possibly die out and instead magically transmogrify as those wascally wabbit demonic Republicans?
Racists never die, apparently.
Who knew?