Who's your least favorite president from each party?

[SPC]

Federalist
John Adams

(Democratic) Republican
J.Q. Adams

Democrat
Woodrow Wilson

Whig
Millard Fillmore

Republican
Abraham Lincoln

[SPC]

No, I can't say that I would,

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this 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. [/quote]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am, because you categorically claimed that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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".

[SPC]

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.

[SPC]

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"?

You must be logged in to read this 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?  [/quote]

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

You must be logged in to read this 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. [/quote]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?
[/quote]

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".

[SPC]

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?
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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, to call me a paleoconservative is ridiculous, given my positions on social issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what is the point of the ad hominem attack?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And where have I justified slavery?

[SPC]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

*snip socialist revanchism*
[/quote]

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

[SPC]

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.

[SPC]

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?

The rest of the South provided material and moral support to the terrorists who attacked Fort Sumter; ergo, they were responsible for the ensuing War.

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you even read the Constitution, dipsh**t? Right there, in the Preamble, it states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How else is the Federal government, as made responsible for "domestic Tranquility" and the "common defense" in the Constitution, to do so without first establishing and ordering a military? [/quote]

Why should I care about the Constitution? It is an void document. Plus, no citizens of the United States were killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and no civilians were under attack.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite frankly, yes. To the victor goes the spoils.
[/quote]

I can only hope you are joking and don't actually believe in mass murder like you describe. If you do, I would suggest psychiatric help.

[SPC]

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Ah, right. So you will therefore condemn Lee's 1864 invasion of Pennsylvania as an act of unwarranted aggression against United States civilians.

No?

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahaha, riiiiiight.[/quote]

Wow, you went through that book fast. Do you care to give a summary?

Plus, even if we do accept the Constitution as valid, then you must condemn all of the unconstitutional actions of President Lincoln, including the deportion of a Congressman, censoring the telegraphs, confiscating weapons, not declaring war on the Confederacy, suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning journalists, imposing an income tax, etc. If not, it would appear that you have not read the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I am unjustified in defending my own property, even if nobody was killed in the course of its destruction?
[/quote]

You haven't answered how a State can own property when it's income is confiscated from taxpayers?

[SPC]

When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

The defender of victors' justice, racism, collectivism, and mass murder says this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. As I just said, Lincoln happily received the agrarian socialist envoy; he simply refused to give into their whining, and they forthrightly stormed out, tears welling in their eyes, and threw a hissy-fit like spoiled children that lasted five years.
[/quote]

So, you believe that people should be forced to be governed by a government against their will? Sounds like slavery, and last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.

[SPC]

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

I'll do that just as soon as you revanchists reject the numerous assaults on American citizens by secessionists. I see that no apology is forthcoming, however.

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, I disagree with many of the measures that Lincoln took in pursuit of the war, many of the same, in fact, that Bush took during his wars. But unlike the "War on Terror", the Civil War was eminently justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

And I will not even tolerate the notion that the Constitution is no longer applicable; suggesting such is tantamount to treason.  [/quote]

Fighting a war to eliminate people's right to free association, by not letting the Southern civilians have the government of their choice is not libertarian. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as killing civilians and destroying the right to free association is NOT libertarian.

Also, I notice that you are too close-minded to even read the essay. It is not applicable because I have not signed it, just like any contract that I have not signed is inapplicable. You use circular logic, the Constitution is legitimate, so suggesting that it is illegitimate is treasonous, so the Constitution is legitimate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When that right is granted to the State in its chartering document, then that State can own property.
[/quote]

Even ignoring any arguments from natural law, could you point to the specific clause that gives the federal government the right to own property. Keep in mind the governments are delegated powers, not rights, so I doubt you will find that anywhere.

[SPC]

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Oh, not at all! They were only coercing slaves - human beings - into becoming property. That's not at all at odds with the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership, no siree!

I never said it was. However, you asserted that the Union army's actions were libertarian, when in fact they were no better than their Confederate counterparts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fighting a war to preserve a socialist economic system that enslaves the individual man in order to recompense one's self from doing physical labor is not libertarian, either. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as enslaving individuals against their will for one's material benefit is not libertarian. [/quote]

Please show me where I defended the Confederates' actions as liberarian. I have not condoned chattel slavery, but you have condoned political slavery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see no reason to subject myself to your socialist pipe-dreams, quite frankly. [/quote]

Where have I described myself as socialist or shown support for socialist ideas? Please provide a quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence the concept of popular sovereignty, which you'd know about if you'd actually spent time inside of a classroom. [/quote]

I know and reject the idea. I cannot be bound by a contract I don't give consent to; anything else is slavery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution is legitimate because it derives its support from the people. The people continue to support it; ergo, the Constitution is legitimate. [/quote]

I doubt that every single individual in the country supports the Constitution. Therefore, it is illegitimate since the Constitution presumes their consent when they have not given it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section II quite clearly grants to Congress the power to collect taxes, with which to buy property. Please, try again.
[/quote]

It never gives the federal government the right to property, since they cannot possess it. Having the power to collect taxes != the right to own property. Only individuals and voluntary associations of individuals can own property.


BTW, it is telling that you must constantly midrepresent my positions in order to continue your argument.

[SPC]

Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they could just move the capital.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actions speak louder than words. He had threatened war if the Southern states didn't pay their tariff revenue.

[SPC]

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, Einzige lost this debate already when he made absurd statements. I know he's hopelessly brainwashed and too close-minded to win over, but if someone stumbled on this thread and saw this debate, it would be quite clear who the winners were, or at least who the loser was, based on all of the absurd statements and logical fallacies Einzige made.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.
[/quote]

What if it was another state then? A state bordering yours.[/quote]

As I pointed out, the analogy is invalid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.
[/quote]

In March 1963, Congress passed the habeas corpus act, which endorsed Lincolns actions on the issue, both past and present.[/quote]

And that matters why? He still violated the Constitution, and even if an act of Congress could override that, it would be an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!
[/quote]

I'm no historian, but to my knowledge many were actively calling for conflict in the Union states.[/quote]

As you said, you are no historian.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they could just move the capital.
[/quote]

True, but don't forget how many people lived there.[/quote]

And don't forget how many people lived in the Confederacy that wanted to be free of Union control.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?
[/quote]

Because they may get out or be proven guilty.

I would bet that many of these newspaper publishers were calling for conflict, adding fuel to the flame if you will.[/quote]

They should have been tried when they were imprisoned, in accordance with the law. And why do you automatically assume that the newspaper publishers were calling for conflict? Most of them were just warning against war. Do you automatically assume that those in Soviet gulags were calling for conflict as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.[/quote]

Uh, no. Lincoln himself said on multiple occasions that he intended to solve the problem through diplomacy. [/quote]

Actions speak louder than words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?
[/quote]

In his inaugural he said he would not force the states to do anything regarding slavery. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Therefore the south had no reason to succeed. It's like if Texas really decided to succeed because Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric would hurt them, even though Obama has done little to suggest he would outright end NAFTA.[/quote]

They seceded because Lincoln was going to raise tariffs, which he did. And why does a reason for secession matter? If you do not wish to be a part of a voluntary union, your reasoning for leaving is irrelevent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are joking, right? Lincoln was a supporter of a strong central government, and a voice in congress is irrelevent when the North is the majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, it's secede, not succeed. Second, why should they be bound to be part of a Union they do not wish to be a part of? As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner". Why should the South be forced to be the sheep in this analogy? Would you consider it to be unjustifiable for the sheep in this election to run for its life?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but I also believe in the right to leave contracts if you feel that it is no longer of use to you. For example, if your wife filed for divorce, it would be completely unjustified to beat the sh**t out of her. That is basically what Lincoln did to the CSA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.[/quote]

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.[/quote]

Actions speak louder than words. He didn't free a single slave.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.[/quote]

I concede this. However, didn't Thomas Jefferson, a man you libertarians admire so much, push for a unilateral embargo. Besides, I'm not going to let one position cause me to hate a President.[/quote]

Jefferson ceased to be good by the time he took the presidential oath of office. Obviously I disapprove of his embargo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? [/quote]

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.[/quote]

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right?

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.[/quote]

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!
[/quote]

Poland wasn't a part of Germany, at least for a long time (maybe way back in history). Again, the north was justified in its actions because the southern states weren't diplomatic, they took the immature route, which was to just leave without the consent of the other states.[/quote]

the Polish Corridor as part of Germany as recently as 1918. Poland wasn't diplomatic about discussing the Polish Corridor with Germany either, they took the immatute route, which was to just leave without the consent of the Germans. I suppose that you have an opinion of Hitler's actions to quell the "secessionist movement" that had been there for the past 21 years?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why does the Constitution say that only Congress can declare war? And what does invading states that want nothing more than to leave in peace have to do with "defending the Constitution"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullsh**t. Prior to the "Civil" War, it was generally understood that states could secede from their federal government. Afterward, that right had been supressed violently, and the people no longer have any safeguard of their individual rights against a tyrannical federal government. Does it matter whether Lincoln personally approved of the abuse if he was the one that allowed it to occur? You could just as easliy make that argument in favor of the British side of the American Revolution. "If we had let the American colonies be, it would be a very chaotic region, with states changng allegiances and forming new countries constantly." Somehow I doubt you are an enthusiast for British colonization.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somehow I doubt that the hundreds of thousands of corpses created by our intervention in Iraq will approve of Bush and his actions there. Somehow I doubt that the Sunni minority is going to very excited for "democracy".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could that be because historians have a bias towards larger government? If historians said that George III was a great king, does that vindicate him?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lincoln is the worst president because he made the abuses of power by all Presidents following him possible. Just wondering, do you feel that the Revolutionary War was provoked by the Americans? Or do you feel that the Kuwaitis provoked the Persian Gulf War? What period of time is required between secessions before it becomes illegitimate to supress them?