Opinion of Woodrow Wilson

[Mechaman]

For me he was a deeply HP

1. Committed racist, refused to admitt Black student to Princeton
2. White Supremacist, who introduced segregation in federal offices
3. Hypocrite, talking neraly exlusively about idealism, but also ordered number of cruel and unjust military interventions
4. For long time undecided regarding World War I
5. Blew up a huge opportunity, League of Nation (yes, this was not only GOP and Lodge fault, Wilson refused to any compromise)
6. Religious fanatic

Yes indeed. How the hell do Democrats excuse this BS? It's shocking how high this bastard is rated by people.

[Mechaman]

For me he was a deeply HP

1. Committed racist, refused to admitt Black student to Princeton
2. White Supremacist, who introduced segregation in federal offices
3. Hypocrite, talking neraly exlusively about idealism, but also ordered number of cruel and unjust military interventions
4. For long time undecided regarding World War I
5. Blew up a huge opportunity, League of Nation (yes, this was not only GOP and Lodge fault, Wilson refused to any compromise)
6. Religious fanatic

Yes indeed. How the hell do Democrats excuse this BS? It's shocking how high this bastard is rated by people.

We excuse that BS?

Obviously massive HP.  Even the part where his foreign policy was somehow both more naïvely idealistic than mine in some ways.

Well not on here, Democrats seem to have a brain on this website (as does everybody else). I've seen numerous sources however (granted both liberal as well as conservative) that rank this bastard pretty highly. I just figured with the Democrat's supposed social liberalism nowdays they wouldn't still think highly of this bastard. Apparently I'm wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#Scholar_survey_results

Now all those scholars can't be all Republicans, can they?
Again, this is not a criticism of Atlas Democrats, just uninformed Democrats (mostly in the general populace) who praise the guy for his economic progressivism while completely ignoring his socially backasswards views.

[Mechaman]

I believe the Antitrust Act and the income tax were the only good things he did. Monopolies are no good for the free market, and the income tax helped reduce the need for tariffs.

As a libertarian, you should know better than to support breaking up successful ventures, unless they fix prices or other such behaviour.

I take more of a moderate stance on economic matters. In that instance, I suppose I'm a bad libertarian

Supporting slavery a.k.a. the income tax makes you not a libertarian at all.

That mentality is what prevents libertarianism from ever becoming viable. You have to be open to a big tent like the two major parties, to accomplish any of your goals at all. It's called compromise.

Not sure about income tax, but the overall uber anti-tax mentality of alot of libertarians is crazy. It isn't taxes we should be against, it should be EXCESSIVE taxes. There's a difference. If you want to oppose any sort of taxation, you might as well become an anarchist, because there is no such thing as a government that can function without taxation.

[Mechaman]

What, sane libertarians?!

Mind boggling isn't it?

[Mechaman]

What, sane libertarians?!

Mind boggling isn't it?

Impossible!  You simply must be insane.  You're so much easier to strawman when you actually believe in your strawmen.

That's what the voices in my head tell me everyday.

[Mechaman]

What, sane libertarians?!

Mind boggling isn't it?

Impossible!  You simply must be insane.  You're so much easier to strawman when you actually believe in your strawmen.

That's what the voices in my head tell me everyday.

That's what she said last night.

OMG FIRST DEGREE BURN apply aloe vera and lidocaine as needed

Who? Your sister?
OMG SECOND DEGREE BURN time to visit the doctor!

[Mechaman]

I believe the Antitrust Act and the income tax were the only good things he did. Monopolies are no good for the free market, and the income tax helped reduce the need for tariffs.

As a libertarian, you should know better than to support breaking up successful ventures, unless they fix prices or other such behaviour.

I take more of a moderate stance on economic matters. In that instance, I suppose I'm a bad libertarian

Supporting slavery a.k.a. the income tax makes you not a libertarian at all.

That mentality is what prevents libertarianism from ever becoming viable. You have to be open to a big tent like the two major parties, to accomplish any of your goals at all. It's called compromise.

Libertarians necessarily must accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable. Robbery at gunpoint, by any name, is clearly a violation.

If that is indeed the case, why even have a government? After all, whether you like government or not, the institution of government can not exist if there is no coercive powers granted to it. If libertarians have to accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable they accept anarchy. If there is really no difference between libertarianism and anarchism what is the point of calling oneself a "libertarian"?