Forget The President, What About The Marijuana?

[Winchester]

I remember when Abraham Lincoln published a newsletter that in his name that made statements speaking for him that contained obscenely racist and homophobic comments.

 

I remember when I had to teach Hasan that a corporation owning something is different from an individual owning something.

[theculturewarrior]

Off topic.  We are talking about weed.

[4588686]

I remember when I had to teach Hasan that a corporation owning something is different from an individual owning something.

So this corporation published a newsletter named after Ron Paul and speaking in first person, as though it were Ron Paul himself making the comments, without Ron Paul's consent? Lincoln had complex feelings about race. Ok. By today's standards he was a racist. Given that he lived in a time before the advent of genetic proof of the comonality of humanity I think that is more understandable than having a letter publish highly racist material in your name for years after years in order to appeal to the racist faction of the American libertarian movement. Yet you seem overly eager to dismiss Lincoln as a simple white supremicist while finding any excuse to absolve Ron Paul of any responsibility.

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul's responsible for it, yes, but he's not the author and those are not his views.  He's got consistent speeches and writings over the years that differ totally in tone, writing style, and message to those statements and it's been pretty thoroughly investigated and shown that there were ghost writers who wrote in first person as Dr. Paul and there are even one or two names of the prime suspects that were definitely writing for the newsletter at that time.  He's a retired congressman who's a political activist now, so his failures in the 1990's are pretty irrelevant.

 

but I think this has something more to do with Lincoln smoking marijuana, right?

[Winchester]

So this corporation published a newsletter named after Ron Paul and speaking in first person, as though it were Ron Paul himself making the comments, without Ron Paul's consent? Lincoln had complex feelings about race. Ok. By today's standards he was a racist. Given that he lived in a time before the advent of genetic proof of the comonality of humanity I think that is more understandable than having a letter publish highly racist material in your name for years after years in order to appeal to the racist faction of the American libertarian movement. Yet you seem overly eager to dismiss Lincoln as a simple white supremicist while finding any excuse to absolve Ron Paul of any responsibility.

 

I've read the articles. Do you have a good link to the articles? Overly eager in the sense that I spent an inordinate amount of time reading about this crap (after my initial gleeful support of the opposite position in my Ron Paul is a nutcase because he doesn't pleasure the Establishment days) and now have my conclusion. One would think a committed racist would write about his racial theory in more than just a few newsletter articles. I already know about the libertarian collusions with white fascists. I think it's deplorable.

 

Lincoln flat out said he wanted whites to be given the higher position. That's supremacy. He also believed in killing people who attempted to leave a political arrangement. He wasn't taking the noble position of abolition. He was a scumbag control freak. No better than the slavers who wanted to expand slavery into new territories. He aspired to autocracy.

[Norseman82]

And my wife and I will enjoy a private moment while listening to Spem in Alium. 

When did you get married?

[theculturewarrior]

When did you get married?

 

five years ago.  We have one daughter, a toddler.  Everybody run for the hills!!!  They legalized breeding for the disabled!!!

[4588686]

I've read the articles. Do you have a good link to the articles? Overly eager in the sense that I spent an inordinate amount of time reading about this crap (after my initial gleeful support of the opposite position in my Ron Paul is a nutcase because he doesn't pleasure the Establishment days) and now have my conclusion. One would think a committed racist would write about his racial theory in more than just a few newsletter articles. I already know about the libertarian collusions with white fascists. I think it's deplorable.

 

Lincoln flat out said he wanted whites to be given the higher position. That's supremacy. He also believed in killing people who attempted to leave a political arrangement. He wasn't taking the noble position of abolition. He was a scumbag control freak. No better than the slavers who wanted to expand slavery into new territories. He aspired to autocracy.

 

And you don't believe that Ron Paul was involved in that collusion?  

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1

[Winchester]

And you don't believe that Ron Paul was involved in that collusion?  

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1

 

 

Wow. I have never heard of that interview. I will now abandon my support of the only candidate consistently opposed to interventionist wars that result in actual death, rather than rhetoric about equality that gives me a warm fuzzy. I will abandon all principle against the use of force to make "those people" in benighted foreign lands accept the beauty and perfection of Western Democracy (His name be praised!), and if only there are enough bombs dropped on them, enough children killed, they will recognize just how SuperGoodGood it is to vote in real elections with candidates who have truly different worldviews, and plans to make our lives better, because God knows we're to stupid to make our own decisions.

 

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. Not in mere physical attributes, but in human dignity. Racists would feel quite happy over the comments made in those newsletters. White racists often champion "states rights", because subsequent to the attempt to kill an immoral institution out of an area, there were laws (in contravention of libertarian principles, but let's not get into that) passed to keep a certain race under the thumb of the State (here meaning the entity (you support) with a monopoly on legalized aggression (which you also support)).

 

Some stupid, or unscrupulous, or whatever the bastards were, libertarians decided to cooperate with these people. I think there are a lot of alleged libertarians who are racist, anyway, and would love to wrench laws away from the Feds so they could enact their own local laws. That would be a contradiction of libertarianism (but again, let's not get into that), indicating that some 'libertarians' adopt the term without understanding it, and without a commitment to peace. Shocker. That really only happens with libertarians, though.

 

I subscribe to the NAP. My ideas come out from there. Yes, I've seen and read articles talking about now NAP fails if there's a railroad car situation thingy. It's precious, really. It took me a long time and a lot of arguing to get to this point. Maybe in a few years, I will become convinced of utils, or whatever it is you use to justify the murder of some to benefit the many. It could happen. It would be a return, admittedly, but hey, there's my own vomit, it tasted fine the first time, I might decide to give it a second go.

 

I think you're interested in justice. I really do. I admire your trip overseas. You are willing to get your hands dirty. But I also think you're wrong. I think your support of the most successful murder machine in the history of man: The State, is worse than my lack of support for it. I actually think it's monstrous. I believed it, once. I was a communist, then a socialist (of the third way, variety, which you may well consider not a socialist, and I think that's a pretty solid belief), then a monarchist with the same third way beliefs. Finally, I have decided that no one has the right to impose rule. I plan on staying here. It looks the most like what Christ said (in spite of my lack of Faith). In the world, not of the world. It doesn't mean I think people will use their liberty for good things, or that the lions will make out with the sheep and be really concerned that the sheep gets its cookie, too.

[Guest]

nm missread

Edited December 6, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

Forgive me I'm a bi polor idiot with a g.e.d. but I thought Lincoln freed the slaves or something ?

[Winchester]

Forgive me I'm a bi polor idiot with a g.e.d. but I thought Lincoln freed the slaves or something ?

 

He wanted to preserve the union. Freeing the slaves was not his objective, and it was something the abolitionists had to battle him for.

 

You can find his racist statements on the interwebs. All Lincoln cared about was preserving the Union, and he acted like an autocrat in doing so. The better option would have been to permit secession and let the peaceful abolitionists carry on with their work.

 

I'm afraid there were no white hats, in that war.

[theculturewarrior]

Forgive me I'm a bi polor idiot with a g.e.d. but I thought Lincoln freed the slaves or something ?

 

Good one.  Do you mind if I use this?

[Papist]

Seems like y'all already moved to Colorado.

[theculturewarrior]

That's not what this looks like to me.  :)