Ron Paul supports state's rights, NOT slavery [Google pro-South Abolitionist Lysander Spooner]

In 1858, Lincoln stated that...

"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 [the crowd applauds] — that 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, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white 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."

I didn't upload this video to YouTube. Someone else did and failed to explain it. Which is why I re-upped it and explained it.

For those ignorant of history, who think this video somehow shows that Ron Paul is racist ... PLEASE CLICK BELOW TO WATCH AN IMPORTANT VIDEO ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgH_NlbM0eM

Good articles here

- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman50.html

Good video on Lincoln here ...

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac

The Civil War was not fought over slavery. That is a myth created by people pushing a political agenda. You can be PRO-Abolitionist AND Pro-South, as Lysander Spooner shows.

See http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Lincoln was a racist
• History
• Civil War
• Lysander Spooner
• Slavery
• Abolition
• Ron Paul

[CelticAngloPress]

@Makkabee

Nowhere does he say freedom for blacks wasn't worth fighting for, what he is saying, is that their where other ways of freeing them without the massive, overwhelming bloodletting of human life that was lost and wasted, and that in the long run both sides could of remained free as well and with the right of self determination.

Only people offended by this are Anti-reality marxist neoliberals and neocons warmongers/degenerates, only real people full of hate and hypocrisy.

[EikC]

@TheJaggedyer

Perhaps Hanlon's Razor applies to Ron Paul; Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be explained by stupidity.

But he also runs into another one, too - Grey's Law. As it applies here:

Is Ron Paul's opposition to historic civil rights legislation due to stupidity or racism? The damage done is the same, so who cares?

[dffykvn]

@EikC All of libertarianism is drivel

It's like a rich guy thought "that old feudal divine right of kings thing would be AWESOME, hmmm let's just replaced every instance of king with "money" and create the divine right of money theory"

Their idea of a free market utopia is as ridiculously stupid as a true communist utopia, neither one is possible in the real world. Actually a communist utopia is more likely because there's a single concrete definition while libertarian is a vague notion

[TheJaggedyer]

@dffykvn Why do you think the mainstream republican media is so afraid of him? Because they know Ron Paul can't be bought out and they know that libertarian ideologies won't allow them to keep making trillions of dollars off our goverment by supplying unneeded military weapons. After Ron Paul stated "no bailouts, ever!", the mainstream media did pretty much everything they could to pretend he didn't exist (especially FOX).

[TheJaggedyer]

@dffykvn Oh no, you are confusing ideologies. In true libertarians, slavery would never be permitted in the first place because the liberties of the people would be protected by the government. Libertarianism does not equal corporatism (the mainstream republican party is an example of "corporatism") and it does not mean anarchism or "no government" either. The unbreakable red tape you speak of is a result of the compounding effect of corrupt government bills used to benefit the lawyers.

[dffykvn]

@TheJaggedyer It is easily solved.

Wealthy people love libertarianism when it's protecting their interests (private property)

They love to play a modern day lord of the manor

Naturally in the courts a poor person rarely beats a rich man or megacorporation thanks to the rich having veritable armies of lawyers that can bury the poor in red tape until whatever condition the rich man inflicted on the poor one kills him.

I just see libertarianism as modern day feudalism.

[TheJaggedyer]

@dffykvn At any rate, I don't think that the speech should be classified as "racist", and I do not believe he is racist but I believe Dr. Paul was conflicted about his own views at the time of this speech perhaps? (cuz I am now...)

[TheJaggedyer]

@dffykvn Well, firstly that doesn't make him a "racist", what if the slaves had been white? (in the case of indentured servants who were white slaves in Europe and the US). There is however a conflicting libertarian dilemma that you pointed out. That is should the liberty of one individual succeed the others liberty? AND is it tyranny for the government to take your "property" even if it happens to persons. That is not a easily solved questioned. I agree with your second point but not your first