Neo-Confederate libertarians are not conservatives.

[Valox]

Without a war, slavery would have collapsed by no later than 1875.

Of course, a simpler way to avoid a war would have been to buy all slaves and declare them free.

The rest of your post is your usual hysterical idiocy, not worth replying to.

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Without a war, slavery would have collapsed by no later than 1875.

Of course, a simpler way to avoid a war would have been to buy all slaves and declare them free.

The rest of your post is your usual hysterical idiocy, not worth replying to.

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The triangle of trade had ended. Slavery was becoming a moral taboo the world over. More over, it wasnt just republicans that owned slaves. Retard.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, it's weak-minded to realize that "Lincoln good, south bad" is a pretty stupid idea.

I think Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents we ever had. He was a true republican. Republicans were and are the abolitionist party.

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

Nor were abolitionists even a strong enough demographic for politicians to pander to in the first place. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between.

Lincoln was an unapologetic white supremacist! Hell, Robert E. Lee was closer to an abolitionist than Lincoln was.

 

[Valox]

Without a war, slavery would have collapsed by no later than 1875.

Of course, a simpler way to avoid a war would have been to buy all slaves and declare them free.

The rest of your post is your usual hysterical idiocy, not worth replying to.

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The triangle of trade had ended. Slavery was becoming a moral taboo the world over. More over, it wasnt just republicans that owned slaves. Retard.

So, Cons who threatened to leave the nation over owning black people who have suddenly come to a liberal realization that owning black people was wrong during 1875?

lol....you people just cannot help yourselves from rewriting history.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents we ever had. He was a true republican. Republicans were and are the abolitionist party.

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

Nor were abolitionists even a strong enough demographic for politicians to pander to in the first place. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between.

He was. How do I know? Because he was a republican you ******* dummy! He didn't want to start a war over it! He didn't have to ether because the confederate democrats did it anyway.

He EXPLICITLY said that he was not set upon freeing slaves. Would you do at least a LITTLE research before posting? If you did, you might not look QUITE as stupid!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

Nor were abolitionists even a strong enough demographic for politicians to pander to in the first place. Genuine abolitionists were few and far between.

He was. How do I know? Because he was a republican you ******* dummy! He didn't want to start a war over it! He didn't have to ether because the confederate democrats did it anyway.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln, the great abolitionist

THANK YOU! I spent ten minutes looking for that quote.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Without a war, slavery would have collapsed by no later than 1875.

Of course, a simpler way to avoid a war would have been to buy all slaves and declare them free.

The rest of your post is your usual hysterical idiocy, not worth replying to.

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Common sense, basic economics, and some grasp of history. You lacking any of those, I do understand why you are incapable of understanding it.

 

[Valox]

Without a war, slavery would have collapsed by no later than 1875.

Of course, a simpler way to avoid a war would have been to buy all slaves and declare them free.

The rest of your post is your usual hysterical idiocy, not worth replying to.

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Common sense, basic economics, and some grasp of history. You lacking any of those, I do understand why you are incapable of understanding it.

Cons lacked common sense....hence why they lost the Civil War.

 

[Impenitent]

Liberatrians aren't into the whole control thing. That's why since the founder's time we've had nothing but Statist Authhoritarians in "control" of this coutnry. But the original idea was libertarian. The Founders were radical libertarians of their time.

The US was developed under the principles of libertariansim. Now, i realize you're going to want to rebuttal this and starta long, drawn out debate about whether what I say is true. But I'm not going to bite. Go read the history books instead.

History will tell me that The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, and that the only successful politicians from that party are the Paul family, who must hitch a ride on a Republican's back to get anywhere.

The more Republican and less Libertarian the Pauls are, the more successful they are. And the successes they've had, have been in the South.

What does that tell you about your movement?

Can you give us an example of what you're talking about? Ron Paul's most successful states in the 2012 Presidential Primary in terms of actual votes were Iowa, Washington, and Maine, and he won the delegations from Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and Louisiana. So on what basis can you say the only victories for the Pauls have come from the south?

Ron Paul lost the Republican nomination nationally. He had a successful career as a Texas congressman. Finishing 3rd or 4th in the losers bracket doesn't even get one a consolation prize. It remains to be seen if Rand Paul can be re-elected.

 

[Valox]

History will tell me that The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, and that the only successful politicians from that party are the Paul family, who must hitch a ride on a Republican's back to get anywhere.

The more Republican and less Libertarian the Pauls are, the more successful they are. And the successes they've had, have been in the South.

What does that tell you about your movement?

Can you give us an example of what you're talking about? Ron Paul's most successful states in the 2012 Presidential Primary in terms of actual votes were Iowa, Washington, and Maine, and he won the delegations from Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and Louisiana. So on what basis can you say the only victories for the Pauls have come from the south?

Ron Paul lost the Republican nomination nationally. He had a successful career as a Texas congressman. Finishing 3rd or 4th in the losers bracket doesn't even get one a consolation prize. It remains to be seen if Rand Paul can be re-elected.

But Cons think the South will rise again!


lmao....

 

[Impenitent]

The Libertarians

They're creepy and they're kooky,
Mysterious and spooky,
They're all together ooky,
The Libertarians

They got their libertarian knowledge
On a Pell Grant at State College
Becoming anti-statist 'cudas
Smoking dope from Aqua-Buddha

They were open to the wonderment
Of hating federal government
They learned equality and integration
Were just unnecessary regulation

Their frat house is a museum
Where people come to see 'em
They really are a scream
The Libertarians

(Self-reliantly)
(living Von Miserly)
(Loving Ayn Randily)

So get a witches shawl on
A soapbox you can crawl on
So you can spew your gall on
Exactly like Rand Paul on
The Libertarians

While libertarians study economics, LOLberals spend their time this way. Then wonder why all their ideas are failures.

I dunno. There are some clever rhymes in there. I'd certainly rather see them writing poetry than legislation.

Are you guys legislators?

 

[bripat9643]

Without a war, slavery would have collapsed by no later than 1875.

Of course, a simpler way to avoid a war would have been to buy all slaves and declare them free.

The rest of your post is your usual hysterical idiocy, not worth replying to.

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Slavery was abolished in every country in the world by 1879, nimrod. IF the South had managed to split off, the pressures against slavery would have increased. For on thing, the North would no longer have to enforce the fugitive slave act, and slaves would then easily escape to the union territory.

 

[Valox]

Without a war, slavery would have collapsed by no later than 1875.

Of course, a simpler way to avoid a war would have been to buy all slaves and declare them free.

The rest of your post is your usual hysterical idiocy, not worth replying to.

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Slavery was abolished in every country in the world by 1879, nimrod. IF the South had managed to split off, the pressures against slavery would have increased. For on thing, the North would no longer have to enforce the fugitive slave act, and slaves would then easily escape to the union territory.

lmao....if we only let racist assholes, be racist assholes, then racist assholes would stop being racist assholes.


Only ******* Idiots (i.e. Conservatives believe in this nonsense).

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Cons would have magically gave up their slaves in 1875?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Slavery was abolished in every country in the world by 1879, nimrod. IF the South had managed to split off, the pressures against slavery would have increased. For on thing, the North would no longer have to enforce the fugitive slave act, and slaves would then easily escape to the union territory.

lmao....if we only let racist assholes, be racist assholes, then racist assholes would stop being racist assholes.


Only ******* Idiots (i.e. Conservatives believe in this nonsense).

Yet, somehow slavery ended all over the world. How do you explain that, asshole?

 

[Valox]

Slavery was abolished in every country in the world by 1879, nimrod. IF the South had managed to split off, the pressures against slavery would have increased. For on thing, the North would no longer have to enforce the fugitive slave act, and slaves would then easily escape to the union territory.

lmao....if we only let racist assholes, be racist assholes, then racist assholes would stop being racist assholes.


Only ******* Idiots (i.e. Conservatives believe in this nonsense).

Yet, somehow slavery ended all over the world. How do you explain that, asshole?

So, letting the South secede because they loved slavery would have somehow ended slavery?

Cons are fucked up.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Trollollolololol

 

[Valox]

Trollollolololol

^^Just got ***** slapped.

 

[bripat9643]

lmao....if we only let racist assholes, be racist assholes, then racist assholes would stop being racist assholes.


Only ******* Idiots (i.e. Conservatives believe in this nonsense).

Yet, somehow slavery ended all over the world. How do you explain that, asshole?

So, letting the South secede because they loved slavery would have somehow ended slavery?

Cons are fucked up.

Slavery would have ended, regardless, dumbfuck. However, one way 800,000 people wouldn't have had to die.

Which way do you think is preferable?

 

[Valox]

Yet, somehow slavery ended all over the world. How do you explain that, asshole?

So, letting the South secede because they loved slavery would have somehow ended slavery?

Cons are fucked up.

Slavery would have ended, regardless, dumbfuck. However, one way 800,000 people wouldn't have had to die.

Which way do you think is preferable?

When?

Cons were still running on slavery in 1964, and then ran on it for decades after.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

History will tell me that The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, and that the only successful politicians from that party are the Paul family, who must hitch a ride on a Republican's back to get anywhere.

The more Republican and less Libertarian the Pauls are, the more successful they are. And the successes they've had, have been in the South.

What does that tell you about your movement?

Can you give us an example of what you're talking about? Ron Paul's most successful states in the 2012 Presidential Primary in terms of actual votes were Iowa, Washington, and Maine, and he won the delegations from Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and Louisiana. So on what basis can you say the only victories for the Pauls have come from the south?

Ron Paul lost the Republican nomination nationally. He had a successful career as a Texas congressman. Finishing 3rd or 4th in the losers bracket doesn't even get one a consolation prize. It remains to be seen if Rand Paul can be re-elected.

The point is that he did have victories in places other than the south. Not enough to win the whole thing, but victories nonetheless. Unless you've got some other examples I'd say your claim was nonsense.