PDA

View Full Version : Rich Lowry bemoans "anti-Lincolnites", complains about Ron Paul




seyferjm
06-17-2013, 07:56 PM
hxxp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/the-rancid-abraham-lincoln-haters-of-the-libertarian-right.html

Warlord
06-17-2013, 07:58 PM
Should be proud to be anti-Lincoln

Cutlerzzz
06-17-2013, 08:00 PM
As someone born in Illinois, I'm glad that Lincoln didn't get his way, ban black people from entering the state, and then have those living in Illinois already deported to their death in Africa.

green73
06-17-2013, 08:01 PM
hahaha

sailingaway
06-17-2013, 08:14 PM
they spin this like crazy.

Warlord
06-17-2013, 08:16 PM
they spin this like crazy.

Truth and honesty is not something they're accustomed to. Some people still dont understand this.

Neocons are lying liars and Rich Lowry is a big, fat neocon.

seyferjm
06-17-2013, 08:17 PM
Also, Tom is certainly not a racist "neo-confederate" like Lowry tries to paint him as. Granted, I only met him once at the Mises Institute seminar, but he did not at all come off that way.

Cutlerzzz
06-17-2013, 08:22 PM
Also, Tom is certainly not a racist "neo-confederate" like Lowry tries to paint him as. Granted, I only met him once at the Mises Institute seminar, but he did not at all come off that way.

I don't have the quote on hand, but I believe Dilorenzo is on the record calling the Confederate government tyrannical, pointing to the support of slavery, suspension of Habeas Corpus, suspending free speech, and instituting a draft. I swear I remember a short, clear, concise critic of the Confederacy from him.

NIU Students for Liberty
06-17-2013, 08:27 PM
What they fail to understand is that bashing Lincoln does not equate to condoning slavery in the south. You even had contemporary critics of slavery like Lysander Spooner who argued that the Confederacy had the power to secede from the Union.

The problem with history is that it tends to be viewed through the "good guys will prevail over the bad guys" lens. What isn't discussed enough, even on this site, is that there were bad guys on both sides (politicians, slave owners, & industrialists) who ended up screwing over the good guys (everyone who was forced into and killed during the Civil War).

otherone
06-17-2013, 08:30 PM
Some dimwit commenter wrote:

Oy. The South lost because secession was not possible within the Constitution, since for any state to dissolve the Union meant the Union did not exist.

To which I reply, Any union that is not voluntary and not of mutual benefit to all constituent members has dissolved itself in favor of empire.

supermario21
06-17-2013, 08:33 PM
I #standwithDiLo

Bastiat's The Law
06-17-2013, 08:41 PM
Cult of Lincoln.

ObiRandKenobi
06-17-2013, 08:41 PM
Seems like he did this to suck up to readers at Politico and Daily Beast.

seyferjm
06-17-2013, 08:45 PM
This article represents what annoys me about so many GOP or die types. They are so desperate to look mainstream and "acceptable" that they will throw their hat in the ring with tyranny.

Occam's Banana
06-17-2013, 09:18 PM
LMAO!! What a pathetic joke!

The closest this braying jackass comes to actually addressing any of DiLorenzo's criticisms is to say that Stephen Douglas was an even bigger bigot than Lincoln was.


The anti-Lincolnites hate that the North instituted a progressive income tax; they never bother to complain that the Confederacy did the same. They hate that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; they never note that Jefferson Davis did, too. They hate that the North resorted to a draft; they don't care that the Confederacy also had one. They hate that Lincoln fought a war against his countrymen; it evidently never occurs to them that Jefferson Davis shot back (let alone that he fired the first shot).

Yeah, that's right, Richie-baby. You wanna know why that is? It's because State-worshipping lackeys like you grovel at the altar of Lincoln & the Union - not Davis & the Confederacy. If - in order to prop up your "grand" vision of the overweening State - sanctimonious idolators like you exhalted the latter the way you do the former, DiLorenzo would be dissecting and exposing your depraved, counter-factual mythology and malicious nonsense just as thoroughly and assiduously. And for exactly the same reasons. And with fully as much justification.

As to your claim that DiLorenzo hasn't criticized Davis & the Confederacy for just the things you mention: you are either an ignorant fool or a willful liar. (But these are not mutually exclusive possibilities.)


[Anti-LIncolnites'] influence shouldn't be exaggerated. The vast majority of people will never hear of them. They exist only as a small but foul temptation on the right.

Sure, Richie-baby, sure. That's why you spend so much time obsessing over them. 'Coz they're just so irrelevant & impotent.

supermario21
06-17-2013, 09:24 PM
I liked where Lowry defended Lincoln's racist debate comments by saying "he was playing defense."

Occam's Banana
06-17-2013, 09:24 PM
I don't have the quote on hand, but I believe Dilorenzo is on the record calling the Confederate government tyrannical, pointing to the support of slavery, suspension of Habeas Corpus, suspending free speech, and instituting a draft. I swear I remember a short, clear, concise critic of the Confederacy from him.

I don't have any references handy, but I know for a fact he has done this not once but numerous times - in writing and in video.

Lowry is talkiing out of his ass when he claims otherwise.

Brian4Liberty
06-17-2013, 09:37 PM
Truth and honesty is not something they're accustomed to. Some people still dont understand this.

Neocons are lying liars and Rich Lowry is a big, fat neocon.

Neo-conservatism is rooted in Marxism. Lincoln and Marx had a mutual admiration. Coincidence?

Occam's Banana
06-17-2013, 09:42 PM
Some dimwit commenter wrote:

Oy. The South lost because secession was not possible within the Constitution, since for any state to dissolve the Union meant the Union did not exist.

To which I reply, Any union that is not voluntary and not of mutual benefit to all constituent members has dissolved itself in favor of empire.

To which I add: Go tell it to Abraham Lincoln.


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portions of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

Abraham Lincoln: Hypocrite-in-Chief

Brian4Liberty
06-17-2013, 09:43 PM
From the story:


Libertarianism is supposed to make the Republican Party sleek and modern, but this variant of the creed—associated with Ron Paul—is stubbornly perverse and highly unappealing.


At first I was like, lol, wut?! I don't recall Ron Paul ever mentioning Lincoln. Not to say that he never gave his opinion, but I don't remember it, and it certainly was never a focus.

But then it occurred that this is an attempt to split libertarians. He is trying to set-up a case for "bad" Ron Paul libertarians, and then no doubt we will have "good" Hannity/Levin libertarians.

sailingaway
06-17-2013, 09:58 PM
Neo-conservatism is rooted in Marxism. Lincoln and Marx had a mutual admiration. Coincidence?

Neo Conservatism is rooted in Trotskyism.

Brian4Liberty
06-17-2013, 10:08 PM
Neo Conservatism is rooted in Trotskyism.

Just a matter of how far back you go. Lenin and Trotsky were Marxists.

Red Green
06-17-2013, 10:13 PM
I don't think of myself as anti-Lincoln so much as pro-John Wilkes Booth.

Origanalist
06-17-2013, 11:11 PM
I don't think of myself as anti-Lincoln so much as pro-John Wilkes Booth.

His bobble head is bobbing on my desk as I type.

Origanalist
06-17-2013, 11:14 PM
Also, Tom is certainly not a racist "neo-confederate" like Lowry tries to paint him as. Granted, I only met him once at the Mises Institute seminar, but he did not at all come off that way.

And this falls under the category "someone had to do it". :rolleyes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TrcM5exDxcc

I know, it's a different Tom.