|
StandardVC10 posted:jrodefeld if you're really so interested in a substantive debate, you should have responded to the bolded question in the Caros post you quoted, rather than just going into your rehearsed spiel about how persecuted your intellectual tradition is or whatever the gently caress. Because it's far more important to making your worldview remotely persuasive as far as we're concerned.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is why you don't believe me when I mention that Lysander Spooner, Frederick Bastiat, and Pierre Joseph Proudhon are indeed a part of the broad libertarian tradition to which I subscribe. Proudhon less so, i'll admit, but the mutualist anarchists are what I would consider cousins to the classical liberals in that they strongly believed that the State was a tool of oppression and the left-wing values they espoused were far better achieved through freedom. Uh, we ignore them because you never talk about their ideas or make arguments based on what they had to say, except when you're making a historical argument that an-cap is really in the same tradition as European left-libertarianism and anarchism, as if you think "left" is some magic word that will keep us from noticing that you spend your time advocating for a dystopian shadowrun corporatocracy where everyone is constantly surveiled by our DRO which regiments our behavior for morality, praising Hoppe's
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
The only place I've seen JRod quote Spooner is when Spooner said the Civil War was bad and the North should have just let the south leave. Not really sure supporting slave-states is a left-wing value, Reconstruction was great while it lasted and the only sad thing about the Civil War was that Southerners forced the US to fight it.
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Luckily support for the slaveholding Confederacy can be reconciled with libertarian values with the magic words "I disagree with slavery in principle" and then you can support slavery in practice all you want! To paraphrase Bastiat: The socialists say we're against abolition just because we're against abolition by the government. I'm not against abolition of slavery at all, I just don't think it should be done by the federal government, and I'd rather have slavery continue forever than let it be abolished via Lincoln's iniquitous tyranny
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Jrod, if the FBI showed up right now to confiscate all your electronic devices and hard drives, about how many years behind bars would you be looking at? Zero. They'd laugh themselves hoarse at his writing, shake their heads in pity at his pile of cuckolding porn, and decide he serves justice better as a walking cautionary tale for his ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Jrode I know in some cultures being a man of one book is considered praise but uh It's not usually meant that way
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:The only place I've seen JRod quote Spooner is when Spooner said the Civil War was bad and the North should have just let the south leave. It's really simple. When the south unilaterally seceded and stole and destroyed northern property, the south clearly broke contractual obligations and broke the NAP. But since this was done in the name of retaining white supremacy libertarians have no choice but to support the confederacy. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, I'm legitimately interested in what your opinion is on the standoff in Oregon. Was it wrong for the ranchers to light fires on federal land that they had contracted to use? Is the fact that they're infringing on the ability of others to enjoy the nature preserve wrong in any way? And, the most important question: have people committed aggression against them by mailing them dildos?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
faxlore posted:Imagine what he could accomplish if he put all this tenacity into something productive. oh but weren't you paying attention, he has an extremely active social and professionallife which he maximizes fully in between the two month cycle when he suddenly has the urge to generate enormous walls of text for a forum that hates him boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:It's really simple. When the south unilaterally seceded and stole and destroyed northern property, the south clearly broke contractual obligations and broke the NAP. But since this was done in the name of retaining white supremacy libertarians have no choice but to support the confederacy. Spooner's argument wasn't quite this bad but it was almost this hypocritical and ridiculous. Spooner believed that the US Constitution is void because it wasn't signed by literally every single living person in the 1860 United States, and even back when it was signed it was only binding on the few dozen or so individuals who agreed to it in 1787 and on the people who actually voted for it but not on anyone who didn't. That's crazy but okay fine, whatever. If you believe that the right of self-government means anyone at any time can unilaterally secede from the country and create their own government by unanimous consent, well it's completely impractical but sure fine. But then he applies that to the Confederacy, even though most people also didn't vote for secession nor for the Confederate constitution, those that could vote were subjected to campaigns of violence and voter intimidation, and huge percentages of the populations of those states (even absolute majorities in some) were held in bondage and not permitted to vote. If the people of the South did/do have the natural right of self-government to secede from the US at will, there's no loving way the Confederate governments had any claim under Spooner's natural law to be their rightful representatives nor to exercise that right of self-government on behalf of their slave population to write a new constitution that enshrined slavery as a fundamental institution of their new government. It's the perfect example of how you can say magic words like "natural law" and "self-government" and get libertarians to support your fuckin brutal violent slave state because the side fighting for abolition and universal* suffrage is using "coercion" instead of just hoping everyone will come around and be nice. He's the perfect fat white neckbeard: better that millions of black people live in slavery forever than for me to live under a government that might occasionally enforce regulations I personally don't like. *dicks only, no chicks
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Jrode, did you know that most of Ron Paul's principled no votes against the machinery of cruellest statism were carefully planned to be symbolic protests, so that he could build his brand and work the rubes? In fact, did you know that most American right-wing political groups are inescapably intertwined with scams? How do you know any of that? People have accused Ron Paul of plenty of things over the years,. but being insincere is certainly not one of them. Ron Paul got into politics to speak out and educate the masses about libertarian ideas and leave a record in American political history that people can look back on. He never cared about passing legislation. Nobody of a sane mind actually thinks that Ron's political positions, whether right or wrong, were taken for any reason other than that is what he genuinely and truly believes. I don't know why you'd think I'd care about right-wing political groups or their scams, considering libertarianism and especially individualist anarchism, are NOT a part of the American right-wing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know why you'd think I'd care about right-wing political groups or their scams, considering libertarianism and especially individualist anarchism, are NOT a part of the American right-wing. Sovcits are pretty much the rightest of the American right wing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:] libertarianism and especially individualist anarchism, are NOT a part of the American right-wing. In reality, Ron Paul caucused with republicans. Like, just fuckin lol that you would say that in a post about Ron Paul of all people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How do you know any of that? People have accused Ron Paul of plenty of things over the years,. but being insincere is certainly not one of them. Ron Paul got into politics to speak out and educate the masses about libertarian ideas and leave a record in American political history that people can look back on. He never cared about passing legislation. Nobody of a sane mind actually thinks that Ron's political positions, whether right or wrong, were taken for any reason other than that is what he genuinely and truly believes. Go look at Ron Paul's voting record. The only person further to the right than him is Ted Cruz. It's insincere because he talks a lot about social freedoms but then votes against them 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How do you know any of that? People have accused Ron Paul of plenty of things over the years,. but being insincere is certainly not one of them. Ron Paul got into politics to speak out and educate the masses about libertarian ideas and leave a record in American political history that people can look back on. He never cared about passing legislation. Nobody of a sane mind actually thinks that Ron's political positions, whether right or wrong, were taken for any reason other than that is what he genuinely and truly believes. As for the latter, libertarianism is right wing as gently caress, economically. Sorry you had to find out this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
It sure is weird how often true leftist American libertarians spend all their time helping Republicans ban abortion, keep down the gays, restrict voting rights of poor people and minorities, and fight against equality for women. Hmmmmm...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How do you know any of that? People have accused Ron Paul of plenty of things over the years,. but being insincere is certainly not one of them. Once again, Ron Paul supported anti-sodomy laws even at the expense of one of his constituents. For all his talk of personal liberties, he's still a bigoted old gently caress. e: and you still haven't told me where I can get some real cheap blurays Wanamingo fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
And again, for all jrodefeld's talk about personal liberty, he'd prefer everyone be forced into Ron Paul's repressive Sharia law as long as the tax burden is lifted away from businesses and from the rich, and the money supply isn't subject to any democratic oversight or control
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
jrod's position on compromise and principles really tells you everything you need to know about him and his ideology The social safety net: well yes it's a good thing that poor people are prevented from starving, but SNAP is funded by the income tax which is blood money and unjustifiable, and anything but staunch opposition is monstrous. The Confederacy: well yeah they literally owned people and legalized rape and murder against those persons, but  hey nobody's perfect I really wish they'd won the war!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How do you know any of that? People have accused Ron Paul of plenty of things over the years,. but being insincere is certainly not one of them. Ron Paul got into politics to speak out and educate the masses about libertarian ideas and leave a record in American political history that people can look back on. He never cared about passing legislation. Nobody of a sane mind actually thinks that Ron's political positions, whether right or wrong, were taken for any reason other than that is what he genuinely and truly believes. Oh good. I was worried I was going to have to be productive tonight. Weight off my shoulders. How about instead of replying to people making fun of your lord and savior you go back a couple pages and look at the debate rules that you specifically asked my opinion on and reply to that since you are interested in a debate and not at all just here to be a whiny bitch. While you're at it maybe you can reply to the bolded post you have been dodging for a while namely: If the Oklahoma Surgery Center is such a winning model why is it not being replicated nationwide? Typically when something is successful other people copy it, but the OSC has been in business for years now with no other doctors attempting to follow suit. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Luckily support for the slaveholding Confederacy can be reconciled with libertarian values with the magic words "I disagree with slavery in principle" and then you can support slavery in practice all you want! Suppose you kidnapped a person off the street and enslaved them in your apartment refusing to let them leave. Then I, an abolitionist, decide to bomb the entire apartment complex in retribution for your act of enslavement. Naturally, I'd be indiscriminately murdering a couple hundred people you had nothing to do with your pro-slavery actions. Thus the act could never be considered moral. On the other hand, if I were able to target you specifically and force you to release your prisoner or, if you refused, to kill you then that is a different matter and could be morally justified. The Civil War was problematic because the killing, property destruction and unintended consequences affected far more than just the unrepentant Southern slave-owners. In fact, hundreds of thousands of non-slave owners and many slaves themselves were killed due to this war. Lincoln's army raped women and burned down entire villages. The war crimes and atrocities committed by both sides were greater than any other war in our nations history. It also could not be rationally considered a "civil war" since one side wanted to leave the Union peacefully, albeit for some immoral reasons including their supposed "right" to maintain the institution of slavery but there were other reasons for the desire to secede. More correctly it should be called the war to prevent Southern secession. If Lincoln hadn't been ardently dedicated to maintaining the Union by any means necessary including waging aggressive war against his own country, the war would have been avoided. The fight against slavery could have and should have been waged a different way. What Lysander Spooner and a number of other historians have pointed out, was that Lincoln's motives were highly dubious. He cared not one whit about the slavery issue until it became strategically advantageous to him as a wartime tactic. A notorious bigot, Lincoln kept the dream alive to his dying day that the United States should relocate all blacks out of the country because he thought the two races could never coexist and the white race was inherently superior. Spooner had proposed very different means of abolishing slavery, one that was congruous with a consistent application of morality. The Union should have been allowed to dissolve and all fugutive slave laws should be immediately repealed. Thus any runaway slave that reaches a Northern state would be immediately free and there would be no way for the Southern plantation owner to re-capture him. Any attempt to do so would amount to an invasion of a foreign nation and the enemy combatant would be immediately shot. All the while, negotiations could begin to take place between the North and South and a re-formation of the Union could be possible if, and only if, the South would agree to a phasing out of the institution of slavery. In the meantime, abolitionists in both the North and South should both continue to maintain the underground railroad which would, as efficiently as possible, transport runaway slaves from the South to freedom in the North. Even more directly, private non-State militia movements should mount a form of domestic guerrilla warfare targeting and killing slave owners who refused to free their slaves. The cost of maintaining the institution of slavery would soon be far too much and negotiations for total emancipation would soon be possible. Simply saying that this view amounts to libertarians "not caring" whether the institution of slavery persisted for another ten or twenty years is disingenuous. Even though slavery was technically abolished with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, blacks didn't achieve genuine freedom for another hundred years. Many historians have noted that the post Reconstruction conditions and treatment of blacks was made immeasurably worse due to the manner in which emancipation took place. It has been persuasively argued that had more peaceful methods of emancipation been successfully tried, blacks might have achieved a genuine equality far earlier in our history. Spooner pointed out that it is hypocritical to not allow freedom of association regarding the Union and it's participating states, but at the same time pose as the great opponents of slavery. Lincoln used conscription, itself a form of slavery, to man his army in the Civil War. This is hypocrisy. If we care at all about moral principles, justice and human rights, we need to apply these standards consistently. The very fact that Lysander Spooner was about as far from a "right-winger" as you could get, I think his words on this matter ought to be taken rather more seriously by the contemporary left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Suppose you kidnapped a person off the street and enslaved them in your apartment refusing to let them leave. Then I, an abolitionist, decide to bomb the entire apartment complex in retribution for your act of enslavement. Supreme pro confederacy revisionism you got going on there. What really happened is a millions were kidnapped and brutally tortured and then the people that did the kidnapping and brutalizing launched an invasion into the north to capture more states and more people to brutally torture and kill. Thanks for completely disregarding the history of the civil war to placate your pro racial slavery views.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The Civil War was problematic Your Fav Is Problematic: the war that ended slavery in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Suppose you kidnapped a person off the street and enslaved them in your apartment refusing to let them leave. Then I, an abolitionist, decide to bomb the entire apartment complex in retribution for your act of enslavement. Naturally, I'd be indiscriminately murdering a couple hundred people you had nothing to do with your pro-slavery actions. Thus the act could never be considered moral. On the other hand, if I were able to target you specifically and force you to release your prisoner or, if you refused, to kill you then that is a different matter and could be morally justified. Right okay, and this objection would be more reasonable if the South hadn't started the war, invaded the north, kidnapped free men to take home as slaves, and oh yeah were run by illegitimate governments whose secession vote was characterized by campaigns of terror and violence against their own citizens to suppress the unionist vote and oh yeahhhhhh significant portions of their populations or outright majorities were held in slavery and barred from the vote altogether. But the oligarchy of plantation owners who seized and kept power by violence and brutality are okay by you because they used the magic words "self government" and "natural law" while they were raping and murdering their slaves for hundreds of years. jrodefeld posted:Spooner pointed out that it is hypocritical to not allow freedom of association regarding the Union and it's participating states, but at the same time pose as the great opponents of slavery. Lincoln used conscription, itself a form of slavery, to man his army in the Civil War. It's pretty hypocritical to believe in self-government, and then accept the confederate governments as rightful representatives of their people exercising self-government on their behalf as they write a constitution explicitly enslaving half the population. Also the Confederate government used conscription to fight their war of subjugation and conquest of the border states, yet you're calling them the peaceable side, hunh. Oh and the Confederacy attacked East Tennessee and West Virginia when they tried to secede from their own states, but hey. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
When the south captured and enslaved someone and then invaded the apartment next door; a libertarian love story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:jrod's position on compromise and principles really tells you everything you need to know about him and his ideology This is the craziest thing I find about Jrod/most libertarians. The fact that they have LITERALLY devoted more time defending the loving Confederacy than preventing poor children from starving via taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Suppose you kidnapped a person off the street and enslaved them in your apartment refusing to let them leave. This post is incorrect. Then you, the slave owner, decide that your neighbors seem to be a bit too nosy and show too many signs of anti-slavery. You declare your independence from the HOA and refuse to pay your HOA fees anymore. You beat your wife and murder a couple slaves when they object to this move. Nobody responds to your demands so you start firing rockets at a neighboring house. Finally, the abolitionist police respond, shooting you and your militia sons. The other members of your household are alive and as well as they could reasonably be given the warzone you forced them to live under. Whatever you posted had so little to do with the actual US Civil War, if I weren't positive you were an American I'd ask to make sure we were talking about the same war. The USA was responding to aggression by terrorists, it was wholly justified and every Confederate soldier and politician serving of their own free will earned their deaths. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Karia posted:Jrodefeld, I'm legitimately interested in what your opinion is on the standoff in Oregon. Was it wrong for the ranchers to light fires on federal land that they had contracted to use? Is the fact that they're infringing on the ability of others to enjoy the nature preserve wrong in any way? And, the most important question: have people committed aggression against them by mailing them dildos? I don't know all the details of this story but I'll tell you what I do know. In the first place, the ranchers at question here (a father and son) lit a controlled fire on their own property. Ranchers do this all the time. Supposedly there was a wild fire raging and by lighting a controlled fire in a particular way you can protect your property from being in danger. They never intentionally set fire to any federal lands. The fire got a little out of control and spread to the State-owned property. No major damage resulted from this fire and no property was hurt. Nobody brought any charges against these ranchers for a handful of years following the event. Then the Feds decide to prosecute them under a ridiculous domestic terrorism statute which requires a minimum sentence of ten years in prison or something like that. Now, the father is in his seventies and the son in his forties. The judge handling the case recognized what a gross miscarriage of justice it would be to put them away for that amount of time for what amounted to an inconsequential accident. The judge used all the discretion at his or her (don't recall the gender) disposal and reduced their sentence to five years or something like that. The ranchers served their time. They were then released to put their lives back together. Amazingly though, the Fed was not satisfied and wanted to put them BACK in jail for a number of additional years! The father I believe is in his late seventies at this point and this would mean that he would likely die in prison. For what? For setting a controlled fire on his own property to protect his family, which happened to spread onto federal land, even though no one was hurt? This is outrageous and is the source of the anger. They have every right to be angry. My main problem with this standoff is that the people doing the protesting are mostly not involved in this case at all. The protesters are not the father and soon who are being persecuted by a power-mad State or their immediate family. It is people like Bundy who are using this as an excuse to stir things up and be provocative. I don't favor an armed insurrection against the State. This is primarily for practical reasons. I don't have much sympathy in general for the right-wing militia types who don't have a consistent understanding of liberty any more than your typical left-winger. But I'm not discounting the fact that the ranchers in these Western states in general have been long subjected to unjust treatment by the Federal government and this case is particularly egregious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
"We Southerners are just trying to peaceably to secede, regardless of what you think of our motivations so to do!" *immediately lynches Southern unionists who dared vote, or even attempt to vote, against secession* jrodefeld posted:I don't know all the details of this story And yet that doesn't stop you shooting your fool mouth of about it. At length. As usual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:51
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Suppose you kidnapped a person off the street and enslaved them in your apartment refusing to let them leave. Then I, an abolitionist, decide to bomb the entire apartment complex in retribution for your act of enslavement. Naturally, I'd be indiscriminately murdering a couple hundred people you had nothing to do with your pro-slavery actions. Thus the act could never be considered moral. On the other hand, if I were able to target you specifically and force you to release your prisoner or, if you refused, to kill you then that is a different matter and could be morally justified. How many decades do I have to hold millions of people in bondage before that crime warrants an intervention? How many people do I have to murder by bringing them from foreign shores, by forcing them to live in squalour, by murdering them by beating, whipping? How long do I have to deny them fundamental privileges, like education? How many countries may I be permitted to invade to expand the breadth of my servile fiefdom (as the South was planning to do?) It's just risible to me that you can so flagrantly disregard the rights of slaves while proclaiming an interest in freedom of any kind. Even on a utilitarian calculation it would be plausibly moral to expend the lives of hundreds of thousands to extinguish the suffering of slaves. In any event, the great offence against freedom is *not* the insistence on the part of a federal government that didn't even start the conflict that slavery be abolished, it is the claim to be acting to free a nation while enslaving almost 4,000,000 people. There is no libertarian solution to the problem of a slaveholding community of people. It is just a group of whimpering fools permitting it to go on forever.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
I love how the correct response to attack and invasion by an aggressive oligarchical slave power (which the South definitely was, they invaded the border states and attacked anyone within their own states who tried to secede, so don't pretend they were protecting the right of secession and self-government) is to disband the military, let them win, and then try to fight some sort of bloody chaotic insurgency until they give up on their own. Now I wonder what the Libertarian response to world war 2 would be. I guess the Allies should have disbanded their governments and militaries, let the Nazis take over the world, then beat them in an insurgency? This also seems to come back to the bizarre Libertarian doublethink where an anarchist society of property-owning yeoman farmers fighting for their personal liberty are an unconquerable military force that will break any statist army and bring them to the surrender table begging for peace, but also the reason no libertarian society exists is because states are too evil and powerful and would immediately attack and conquer it out of fear and spite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
The only reason he isn't defending Hitler is that most libertarian garbage was hashed out before 1945,you guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know all the details of this story but I'll tell you what I do know. In the first place, the ranchers at question here (a father and son) lit a controlled fire on their own property. Ranchers do this all the time. Supposedly there was a wild fire raging and by lighting a controlled fire in a particular way you can protect your property from being in danger. They never intentionally set fire to any federal lands. The fire got a little out of control and spread to the State-owned property. Haha, yeah, no e: I'd tell you why you're completely wrong about this, but you wouldn't listen so why bother
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I get it now. The title is one of those leading TV news question headlines. Is Obama a Muslim? Are we going to die of Ebola? etc. The answer is always no. Jrod just phrased the question wrong by adding in the Why. Should we care about property rights? By which he means, should we care about the rights of property (slaves)? The answer is always no! So, apparently, we shouldn't care about slavery. Thanks for teaching us about property rights Jrod.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Almost any big name 19th century classical liberal also, as it happens, was pro-Union in the end. So about that golden age of thought jrode.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know all the details of this story but I'll tell you what I do know. In the first place, the ranchers at question here (a father and son) lit a controlled fire on their own property. Ranchers do this all the time. Supposedly there was a wild fire raging and by lighting a controlled fire in a particular way you can protect your property from being in danger. They never intentionally set fire to any federal lands. The fire got a little out of control and spread to the State-owned property. Committing arson against 140 some acres of land on 3 separate occasions and jeopardizing the lives of multiple firefighters. Openly supporting arson through negligence against others property and calling all of that "a controlled fire". You're a loving joke and that's two clear instances of you making GBS threads all over the NAP on just this page. quote:I don't favor an armed insurrection against the State. This is primarily for practical reasons. I don't have much sympathy in general for the right-wing militia types who don't have a consistent understanding of liberty any more than your typical left-winger. this, after you just went to bat for the confederacy invading the north in support of mass rape and slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
The reason Ron Paul rails so much against the federal government is because he wants to introduce a theocracy at the state level. Hope this helps, jrod.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:"We Southerners are just trying to peaceably to secede, regardless of what you think of our motivations so to do!" *Invades neighboring states* *kidnaps more slaves* *draws up plans for conquest, subjugation, and enslavement of neighboring countries to get even more slaves*
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It also could not be rationally considered a "civil war" since one side wanted to leave the Union peacefully This is a lie, and you are a goddamn idiot. The Confederacy was explicitly expansionist towards southern states that had shown themselves to be insufficiently treasonous. Just as one example, within five months of war breaking out the Confederates had already invaded Kentucky, which had taken an explicitly neutral position in the war. But I guess that was Lincoln's fault too, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
The invasion of Mexico in 1848 was a thoroughly Southern enterprise, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:11
|
|
