Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 17, 2019, 12:38:25 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Who's your least favorite president from each party?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 Print
Author Topic: Who's your least favorite president from each party?  (Read 56333 times)
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,904
Finland


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: July 09, 2009, 06:07:06 pm »

Uh, no, it isn't. Because unless you've never heard of a war economy before, you'd know that tariffs and protectionism generally are entirely justifiable during a period of war: it guarantees business and stability to native industry, and therefore prevents them from selling arms and ammunition to the enemy. And so Lincoln's economic programme was formulated in the light of Southern secession; he was a free soiler capitalist otherwise. Not, of course, that I expect your primitive Southern brain to be able to wrap itself around this fine a point.
No, interventionism and protectionism are not justifiable regardless of whether you want to call it a "war economy."

But then again, in my bizarre version of libertarianism, wars of aggression aren't justifiable in the first place.

Quote
If the rest of the world began marching posthaste off the nearest cliff, would the South follow also (let us hope)?
Presumably it would have followed the general Western trend toward abolishing slavery, something accomplished without mass-bloodshed in just about every other country that did so.

Quote
Slavery is the agrarian equivalent of socialism; for it treats the individual slaves as the means of production, and justifies the common ownership of them on a class (or race)-basis. It's not my fault your white trash cracker ancestors were too lazy to plow the land themselves, and so appropriated Africans to do it for them. Just as any method towards the defeat of socialism is sacrosanct, so too is massive resistance towards its agrarian counterpart. One cannot have socialism without slavery, and one cannot have slavery without socialism.
The very existence of a state with the power of coercive taxation makes all workers essentially into slaves.

Quote
And had the U.S. government followed the example of European powers and not resisted Soviet aggression, we'd be a benign social-democratic state today, right?

Don't be a tool. The European's hesitance to buck agrarian slavery is one of the chief reasons its industrial counterpart is so prevalent there today, in socialism.
I don't see how your Soviet comparison could possibly work here.

 Europe abolished slavery without war; why is abolishing it with war better?

Quote
Or, you know, his scheme to win the war, free the slaves from the bondage of their caste-based socialism, and restore them to honest capitalist employment?
Wow, quite an altruist that mythical Lincoln in your mind must be. We're talking here about the real Abe Lincoln, the white supremacist corporatist who would do anything to advance his own political ambitions.
Logged

Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,864
Cuba


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: July 09, 2009, 06:36:43 pm »

My display name will remain to reflect my belief in individual liberty, something so despised by that warmongering tyrant Lincoln and his supporters. I would appreciate not being lectured about libertarianism by a non-libertarian such as yourself.

Your display name is also that of an epic failure.
Logged



"Hay reiteradas denuncias de que las grabaciones las hizo la agencia Británica MI 6 amigos de Juán Manuel Santos. Autoridades extranjeras en una treta en mi contra"
-Álvaro Uribe, 25 July 2018
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,574
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: July 09, 2009, 08:31:53 pm »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?


I really don't understand why self-proclaimed 'libertarians' perpetuate this ancient canard. One of the central credos of classical liberal theory, first promulgated by John Locke, is that all men are possessed of the innate right of self-ownership. If one man owns another human being, he is contravening that basic right and, therefore, subjecting him to tyranny. Lincoln may have done some morally questionable things in pursuit of winning the war, but was, on the whole, fighting for a righteous cause.

I believe this is simply a side-effect of that decaying fusionist philosophy that will hopefully fall away completely when that particular ideological superstructure totally buckles.
Oh yes,  I forgot all about the fact that Lincoln sent a half-a-million men to their deaths for the "righteous cause" of forcing tariffs upon the South to enable his industrialist corporate clients to monopolize the market under a wall of favoritism and protectionism.

What was it you were rambling on about?
So Lincon was a slave to corporate industrialists, but Harding and Coolidge who you listed as your favorite presidents weren't...

Awesome. I can't understand why libertarians can't win a single state house seat nationwide.
Logged

In America, it's easier to con somebody than to convince them they've been conned.-- Mark Twain.
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,904
Finland


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: July 09, 2009, 08:51:56 pm »

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.
Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?


I really don't understand why self-proclaimed 'libertarians' perpetuate this ancient canard. One of the central credos of classical liberal theory, first promulgated by John Locke, is that all men are possessed of the innate right of self-ownership. If one man owns another human being, he is contravening that basic right and, therefore, subjecting him to tyranny. Lincoln may have done some morally questionable things in pursuit of winning the war, but was, on the whole, fighting for a righteous cause.

I believe this is simply a side-effect of that decaying fusionist philosophy that will hopefully fall away completely when that particular ideological superstructure totally buckles.
Oh yes,  I forgot all about the fact that Lincoln sent a half-a-million men to their deaths for the "righteous cause" of forcing tariffs upon the South to enable his industrialist corporate clients to monopolize the market under a wall of favoritism and protectionism.

What was it you were rambling on about?
So Lincon was a slave to corporate industrialists, but Harding and Coolidge who you listed as your favorite presidents weren't...

Awesome. I can't understand why libertarians can't win a single state house seat nationwide.

Your bizarre attempt at making a point is absurd considering neither Harding nor Coolidge started a war on behalf of corporate interests, nor did they seize dictatorial powers and throw out constitutional rights. In fact Harding restored constitutional rights and liberties lost during the tyranny of Woodrow Wilson, pardoning political prisoner Eugene Debs and calming the Red Scare created by Wilson, as well as bringing a formal end to U.S. involvement in World War I by signing the Knox-Porter Resolution.
Logged

??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,193
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: July 09, 2009, 09:22:02 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: July 09, 2009, 10:29:50 pm »

No, interventionism and protectionism are not justifiable regardless of whether you want to call it a "war economy."

Oh, right. So, I suppose then that you'd not take any issue with Lockheed-Martin selling the latest scramjet technology to the Taliban?

Quote
But then again, in my bizarre version of libertarianism, wars of aggression aren't justifiable in the first place.


I see. You will, naturally then, condemn the rebel attack on Fort Sumter as the initiation of a War of Southern Secession in the pursuit of the preservation of a socialist economic system, won't you? 

Quote
Presumably it would have followed the general Western trend toward abolishing slavery, something accomplished without mass-bloodshed in just about every other country that did so.

Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that there were no other wars fought against slavery. How stupid I was to forget that the American Civil War was the only such one.

Quote
The very existence of a state with the power of coercive taxation makes all workers essentially into slaves.

Don't try to change the subject, white trash. Do you or do you not deny that the antebellum slave system in the American South was a form of socialism? And do you therefore deny that your gap-toothed inbred ancestors were in fact fighting against modernizing capitalism and in favor of a backwards agrarian socialism?
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,904
Finland


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: July 09, 2009, 10:34:40 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.
Logged

Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: July 09, 2009, 10:36:58 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,193
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: July 09, 2009, 10:42:06 pm »

Certainly the poor Irish working 14 hours a day had loads of liberty in the great industrial north. I love how you just assume everything about Libertas w/out even knowing the first thing about him. Many very credible historians agree with a lot of the positions he has posted here.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: July 09, 2009, 10:46:16 pm »

Certainly the poor Irish working 14 hours a day had loads of liberty in the great industrial north. I love how you just assume everything about Libertas w/out even knowing the first thing about him. Many very credible historians agree with a lot of the positions he has posted here.

And? They did it themselves, honestly. My ancestors understood that labor, and labor alone, produces anything of worth; and, in order to honestly earn what they valued, they produced it themselves. His ancestors, to the contrary, skirted honest work whenever feasible, and enslaved an entire people to avoid it.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,904
Finland


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: July 09, 2009, 10:53:02 pm »

Oh, right. So, I suppose then that you'd not take any issue with Lockheed-Martin selling the latest scramjet technology to the Taliban?
No, I can't say that I would, nor can I see how that relates to the issue of mid-19th century protectionism. 

Quote
I see. You will, naturally then, condemn the rebel attack on Fort Sumter as the initiation of a War of Southern Secession in the pursuit of the preservation of a socialist economic system, won't you? 
The state of South Carolina had declared its independence from the United States, and the C.S.A. had attempted to negotiate the purchase of U.S. federal property on its territory. It was Lincoln's refusal to negotiate that made war inevitable.

Quote
Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that there were no other wars fought against slavery. How stupid I was to forget that the American Civil War was the only such one.
You are seriously comparing Caribbean slave revolts to Lincoln's war on the South?  Wow.

How many lame and ridiculous comparisons are you going to make before you realize that you're in way over your head?

Quote
Don't try to change the subject, white trash.
I don't think your white supremacist hero Lincoln would like that remark.

Quote
Do you or do you not deny that the antebellum slave system in the American South was a form of socialism? And do you therefore deny that your gap-toothed inbred ancestors were in fact fighting against modernizing capitalism and in favor of a backwards agrarian socialism?
Slavery was an inhumane evil, but to call it 'socialism' would I think be a bit of a stretch.


Logged

Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: July 09, 2009, 11:02:34 pm »

No, I can't say that I would,

Of course not. Because to feel otherwise would blemish your otherwise impeccable moron credentials.

Quote
nor can I see how that relates to the issue of mid-19th century protectionism.

Because Lincoln's economic policies were exactly that, designed specifically to prevent American companies and American allies (chiefly Britain) from exporting goods to the Confederacy, and not, by any means, a long-term economic programme for peacetime? Ah, but realizing this would require subtlety on your part - something that inbreds are not, at all, known for.

Quote
The state of South Carolina had declared its independence from the United States, and the C.S.A. had attempted to negotiate the purchase of U.S. federal property on its territory. It was Lincoln's refusal to negotiate that made war inevitable.

Wrong, jackass. Fort Sumter was attacked in the middle of negotiations, naturally bringing them to a stand-still. Lincoln's only mistake was in believing that the agrarian socialists would hold true to their word long enough for a compromise to be reached.

Quote
You are seriously comparing Caribbean slave revolts to Lincoln's war on the South?  Wow.

Yes, I am, because you categorically claimed that

Quote
it would have followed the general Western trend toward abolishing slavery, something accomplished without mass-bloodshed in just about every other country that did so.

I proved you wrong. Traitors seem least of all to like the truth, because they are in fact traitors to truth.

*snip puerile revanchism*

Quote
Slavery was an inhumane evil, but to call it 'socialism' would I think be a bit of a stretch

Uh, yes, it's socialism in every way possible.

What is socialism? Mass control over the means of production. What were the 'means of production' in the antebellum, agrarian South? Slaves. Who had control over them? Whites. Hence, Southern slavery was agrarian socialism, and you are a collectivist and anti-individualist for supporting an economic system that rejects the right of self-ownership of the individual man over his own being.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
JJones
Rookie
*
Posts: 34


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: July 09, 2009, 11:05:14 pm »

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican
Benjamin Harrison
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: July 09, 2009, 11:08:26 pm »

No, I can't say that I would,

Of course not. Because to feel otherwise would blemish your otherwise impeccable moron credentials.

Quote
nor can I see how that relates to the issue of mid-19th century protectionism.

Because Lincoln's economic policies were exactly that, designed specifically to prevent American companies and American allies (chiefly Britain) from exporting goods to the Confederacy, and not, by any means, a long-term economic programme for peacetime? Ah, but realizing this would require subtlety on your part - something that inbreds are not, at all, known for.

So, statist policies are okay during wartime? That's sounds very neo-connish to me.

Quote
Quote
The state of South Carolina had declared its independence from the United States, and the C.S.A. had attempted to negotiate the purchase of U.S. federal property on its territory. It was Lincoln's refusal to negotiate that made war inevitable.

Wrong, jackass. Fort Sumter was attacked in the middle of negotiations, naturally bringing them to a stand-still. Lincoln's only mistake was in believing that the agrarian socialists would hold true to their word long enough for a compromise to be reached.

What negotiations? If a state says they've seceded, they're independent. End of discussion. No "negotions" are necessary.

Quote
Quote
You are seriously comparing Caribbean slave revolts to Lincoln's war on the South?  Wow.

Yes, I am, because you categorically claimed that

Quote
it would have followed the general Western trend toward abolishing slavery, something accomplished without mass-bloodshed in just about every other country that did so.

I proved you wrong. Traitors seem least of all to like the truth, because they are in fact traitors to truth.

*snip puerile revanchism*

So, the death of thousands of Southern civilians is justified because a minority of them did evil things? Very collectivist.

Quote
Slavery was an inhumane evil, but to call it 'socialism' would I think be a bit of a stretch

Uh, yes, it's socialism in every way possible.

What is socialism? Mass control over the means of production. What were the 'means of production' in the antebellum, agrarian South? Slaves. Who had control over them? Whites. Hence, Southern slavery was agrarian socialism, and you are a collectivist and anti-individualist for supporting an economic system that rejects the right of self-ownership of the individual man over his own being.
[/quote]

That is collectivist of you to assume that all Southern Whites took part in slavery, when only a minority of them held slaves. And I don't believe Libertas ever voiced support for slavery. You, on the other hand, have justified the killing of innocents in the name of "ending slavery".
Logged

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: July 09, 2009, 11:13:01 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?

Wow, so now one's ancestry is relevant to political debate? Very racist and collectivist.
Logged

Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: July 09, 2009, 11:15:10 pm »

So, statist policies are okay during wartime? That's sounds very neo-connish to me.

Presuming you want to, you know, win a war? Most certainly. That's why idiot paleocons like yourself would prove hilariously inept running any sort of military campaign, and ought to be kept away at all costs from such a position.

Quote
What negotiations? If a state says they've seceded, they're independent. End of discussion. No "negotions" are necessary.

Sumter was still the property of the United States government, dumbass. Would you like to justify to me the ethical validity of attacking your neighbor's property if it exists on your land?

Quote
So, the death of thousands of Southern civilians is justified because a minority of them did evil things? Very collectivist.

Just like the death of millions of Soviet citizens would have been justified had it come to it, most certainly.

Quote
That is collectivist of you to assume that all Southern Whites took part in slavery, when only a minority of them held slaves. And I don't believe Libertas ever voiced support for slavery. You, on the other hand, have justified the killing of innocents in the name of "ending slavery".

I understand that paleoconservatives like yourself are unthinking, unblinking, mindless drones designed to propagate whatever sort of rubbish Lew Rockwell vomits in your general direction, but you do yourself a disservice by refusing to at least think for yourself. No economic system that denies the right of self-ownership to any man is morally justifiable, and all of them are enemies of the capitalist state of affairs. By even attempting to justify slavery, you pave the way for socialism.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: July 09, 2009, 11:17:10 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?

Wow, so now one's ancestry is relevant to political debate? Very racist and collectivist.

Most certainly so. I am convinced that the world-historical laziness and lack of competence of Southerners is heritable, the result of a genetic bottleneck.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: July 09, 2009, 11:18:51 pm »

No, interventionism and protectionism are not justifiable regardless of whether you want to call it a "war economy."

Oh, right. So, I suppose then that you'd not take any issue with Lockheed-Martin selling the latest scramjet technology to the Taliban?

I thought you were a "non-interventionist"?

Quote
Quote
But then again, in my bizarre version of libertarianism, wars of aggression aren't justifiable in the first place.


I see. You will, naturally then, condemn the rebel attack on Fort Sumter as the initiation of a War of Southern Secession in the pursuit of the preservation of a socialist economic system, won't you? 

How is it an attack when the Union provoked the attack by having a military base of another sovereign country?

Quote
Quote
Presumably it would have followed the general Western trend toward abolishing slavery, something accomplished without mass-bloodshed in just about every other country that did so.

Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that there were no other wars fought against slavery. How stupid I was to forget that the American Civil War was the only such one.

So now starting wars is justified when you want to force your economic system on another people. Sounds pretty Trotskyist to me.

Quote
Quote
The very existence of a state with the power of coercive taxation makes all workers essentially into slaves.

Don't try to change the subject, white trash. Do you or do you not deny that the antebellum slave system in the American South was a form of socialism? And do you therefore deny that your gap-toothed inbred ancestors were in fact fighting against modernizing capitalism and in favor of a backwards agrarian socialism?

The economic system their country had is irrelevent. Was the invasion of Iraq justified because the Baath Party had socialist policies?  How about U.S. intervention in Vietnam, to provent Indochina from becoming "socialist"? And I can't help but notice that despite not having ever seen or known Libertas, you immediately assume that he is "white trash", "gap-toothed", and "inbred".
Logged

Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: July 09, 2009, 11:27:18 pm »

I thought you were a "non-interventionist"?

If someone tries to burn my property - even if it's on theirs - they can expect a full intervention of buckshot. Likewise--

Quote
How is it an attack when the Union provoked the attack by having a military base of another sovereign country?

Because Fort Sumter was bought and paid for by the Federal government, constructed using its monies, on land that it owned at the time of construction? I understand that pissant communists like yourself, because you reject property rights, feel free to attack the property of another; I am slightly more reserved than you are, in that I believe the Southerners had no right whatsoever to lay a finger on Federal property, regardless of whose land it was claimed to be on.

Quote
So now starting wars is justified when you want to force your economic system on another people. Sounds pretty Trotskyist to me.

If they attack my property in the name of their socialist economic system? Most certainly.

*snip socialist revanchism*
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,904
Finland


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: July 09, 2009, 11:28:01 pm »


Quote
nor can I see how that relates to the issue of mid-19th century protectionism.

Because Lincoln's economic policies were exactly that, designed specifically to prevent American companies and American allies (chiefly Britain) from exporting goods to the Confederacy, and not, by any means, a long-term economic programme for peacetime? Ah, but realizing this would require subtlety on your part - something that inbreds are not, at all, known for.
Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

"Protectionism" had nothing to do with stopping U.S. goods from being exported to a country they were at war with. That you would be mistaken about the meaning of a basic economic policy is laughable and betrays your total lack of knowledge beneath that thin veneer of arrogance.

And a primary purpose of the war was to ensure Northern manufacturers would indeed have access to sell their goods competitively in Southern markets.  

Quote
Wrong, jackass. Fort Sumter was attacked in the middle of negotiations, naturally bringing them to a stand-still. Lincoln's only mistake was in believing that the agrarian socialists would hold true to their word long enough for a compromise to be reached.
Making things up now? Lincoln's stubborn policy from day one was to refuse to acknowledge the existence of the C.S.A. in his fanatical devotion to the mythical "Union."

Quote
I proved you wrong. Traitors seem least of all to like the truth, because they are in fact traitors to truth.
You proved me wrong by comparing slave revolts on Caribbean islands to a civil war initiated by the President of the United States whose initial goal was to simply preserve the union at all costs?

If you have an example of Britain or any other European slave-owning power being engulfed in a civil war in order to end slavery, do let me know. There, I've told you exactly what you need to do to make your case, don't embarrass yourself with another ridiculous non sequitur of a comparison.
Logged

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: July 09, 2009, 11:32:48 pm »

So, statist policies are okay during wartime? That's sounds very neo-connish to me.

Presuming you want to, you know, win a war? Most certainly. That's why idiot paleocons like yourself would prove hilariously inept running any sort of military campaign, and ought to be kept away at all costs from such a position.

So I'm a pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-free trade paleocon? Roll Eyes
And, as a libertarian, I care far more about the liberties of people than winning any military campaign. And military campaigns would be rare if you were peaceful with all nations, regardless of their domestic policies.

Quote
Quote
What negotiations? If a state says they've seceded, they're independent. End of discussion. No "negotions" are necessary.

Sumter was still the property of the United States government, dumbass. Would you like to justify to me the ethical validity of attacking your neighbor's property if it exists on your land?

And how is it justified to have a military base on another sovereign nation's soil without its consent? Especially when that nation is intent on attacking your nation for tariff revenues?

Quote
Quote
So, the death of thousands of Southern civilians is justified because a minority of them did evil things? Very collectivist.

Just like the death of millions of Soviet citizens would have been justified had it come to it, most certainly.

That is awful! You would be willing to kill millions of innocent people just so you could have "regime change" in Russia?! And why exactly do you bitch about neocons who do that same thing in Iraq?

Quote
That is collectivist of you to assume that all Southern Whites took part in slavery, when only a minority of them held slaves. And I don't believe Libertas ever voiced support for slavery. You, on the other hand, have justified the killing of innocents in the name of "ending slavery".

Quote
I understand that paleoconservatives like yourself...
Again, to call me a paleoconservative is ridiculous, given my positions on social issues.

Quote
...are unthinking, unblinking, mindless drones...

And what is the point of the ad hominem attack?
Quote
...designed to propagate whatever sort of rubbish Lew Rockwell vomits in your general direction...
I disagree with Lew Rockwell on abortion and immigration, but he had good positions on most other things. Just because I agree with him most of the times doesn't mean I "propogate" what he says.

Quote
...but you do yourself a disservice by refusing to at least think for yourself...

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?

Quote
No economic system that denies the right of self-ownership to any man is morally justifiable, and all of them are enemies of the capitalist state of affairs. By even attempting to justify slavery, you pave the way for socialism.

And where have I justified slavery?
Logged

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: July 09, 2009, 11:39:59 pm »

I thought you were a "non-interventionist"?

If someone tries to burn my property - even if it's on theirs - they can expect a full intervention of buckshot. Likewise--

Even if I accept all of your bullsh**t about the Civil War, wouldn't the appropriate response be to recover the lost property, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the incident?

Quote
Quote
How is it an attack when the Union provoked the attack by having a military base of another sovereign country?

Because Fort Sumter was bought and paid for by the Federal government, constructed using its monies, on land that it owned at the time of construction? I understand that pissant communists like yourself, because you reject property rights, feel free to attack the property of another; I am slightly more reserved than you are, in that I believe the Southerners had no right whatsoever to lay a finger on Federal property, regardless of whose land it was claimed to be on.

And, assuming that you are correct, the Federal government "bought and paid" for Fort Sumter with money stolen from taxpayers. Thus, the "puchase" was illegitimate. And I am as far from a communist as you can get. I would question whether you are a communist, since you believe that the State has the right to own property.

Quote
Quote
So now starting wars is justified when you want to force your economic system on another people. Sounds pretty Trotskyist to me.

If they attack my property in the name of their socialist economic system? Most certainly.

*snip socialist revanchism*

So would Saddam Hussein have been justified in imposing a Baathist dictatorship in America because we 'attacked "his" property', if he were capable?
Logged

Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: July 09, 2009, 11:40:55 pm »

Federalist- John Adams
Democrat-Republican- James Madison (come on folks, if the British have set fire to Washington D.C. on your watch, you've failed.)
Whigs- Zachary Taylor
Democratic- Grover Cleveland
Republican- Calvin Coolidge

!!!!!!!!!!
Logged

people suck
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: July 09, 2009, 11:41:09 pm »

Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

Wow. This... wow. What are they teaching you in the schools down there?

Lincoln's economic plan is well known. It entailed the temporary nationalization of industries related to the war effort (once more, to ensure that they did not supply the Confederacy with weapons or ammunition and to ensure the Federal government's monopoly over the same), along with plans to restructure the Southern economy towards an industrial focus, eventually integrating the Freedmen into the free-market structure.

On the whole, this is a remarkably non-statist economic platform for the time; in comparison, Brazil's conservatives completely nationalized all industries during its own civil war.

Quote
"Protectionism" had nothing to do with stopping U.S. goods from being exported to a country they were at war with. That you would be mistaken about the meaning of a basic economic policy is laughable and betrays your total lack of knowledge beneath that thin veneer of arrogance.

See above. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no real knowledge of the issues involved whatsoever.

Quote
Making things up now? Lincoln's stubborn policy from day one was to refuse to acknowledge the existence of the C.S.A. in his fanatical devotion to the mythical "Union."

Uh, no. Lincoln received Southern emissaries prior to the Battle of Fort Sumter; he quite simply refused to recognize their independence, and justifiably so. Therefore the Southerners launched a war of aggression against the North.  

*snip socialist revanchism*
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: July 09, 2009, 11:41:52 pm »

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?

Wow, so now one's ancestry is relevant to political debate? Very racist and collectivist.

Most certainly so. I am convinced that the world-historical laziness and lack of competence of Southerners is heritable, the result of a genetic bottleneck.

That is so racist it doesn't even warrant a response. If you said that same thing about my (Jewish) race, nobody would hesitate to call you a neo-Nazi.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines