The Republican Party nominates an African-American man, Michael Steele, as their first black chairman...and David Duke doesn't like him. 
WOW, OH, WOW! I just never saw that coming!  I mean, it's like finding out Joe the Plumber is now a GOP advisor! 

:D

Duke, former Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan, yeah the real Ku Klux Klan, not the one from the sit-com, called Steele a "Black racist," "traitorous" on his positions on gun control, affirmative action, and the death penalty, and a "servile dog of Israel," if you can imagine such a thing. 

"I think the insanity of nominating ‘Mr. Amnesty’ John McCain and now this black racist will lead to insurgency in the Republican ranks," Duke said.

Mr. Duke also wants you to know it has nothing to do with Steele being black, just being a racist, a black racist to be precise!

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/klansman-david-duke-calls-rnc-chair-racist

David, do you ever get the feeling that NOBODY likes you?

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

Hopefully, this insurgency will separate the Libertarian-leaning Republicans from the religious nutjob Republicans.

Libertarians have a lot of potential, whereas the Religious Right is that segment of our population that Europeans usually make fun of.

I don't know, those Libertarians seem to me to be a seething pot of right wing nut cases waiting to explode.  Religious nutjobs without the religion

I don't know, those Libertarians seem to me to be a seething pot of right wing nut cases waiting to explode.  Religious nutjobs without the religion


You got that right (pun intended)

Isn't it calling the kettle black?  David Duke calling someone a racist.  I thought being any type of racist would be a plus for Duke.

Isn't it calling the kettle black?  David Duke calling someone a racist.  I thought being any type of racist would be a plus for Duke.


Yeah, that's what Rachel Maddow said, getting called a racist by David Duke is like...getting called a racist by David Duke!

It was no surprise to me because Duke's game for the past 18 years is calling "liberals" racist...racist against WHITE people!  It's cheap, it's lame, but it's what racists learned to do over the past generation. 

The thing is, Steele is the kind of black man the neo-racists point out as what African-Americans should be like but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  You'd think they just made Louis Farrakhan the chair of the GOP!
::)

I don't know, those Libertarians seem to me to be a seething pot of right wing nut cases waiting to explode.  Religious nutjobs without the religion


Well, every group has its fundies.  I'm not exactly fond of the fundie left wingers either.

Moderation is key, but what separates Libertarians from the Religious Right is that they still have beliefs rooted in logic, not unprovable assumptions in scripture.

You can argue economics with someone, but arguing religion doesn't usually accomplish much.

In short, with Libertarians at the helm, the GOP would be much easier to reason with.

Well, every group has its fundies.  I'm not exactly fond of the fundie left wingers either.

Moderation is key, but what separates Libertarians from the Religious Right is that they still have beliefs rooted in logic, not unprovable assumptions in scripture.

You can argue economics with someone, but arguing religion doesn't usually accomplish much.

In short, with Libertarians at the helm, the GOP would be much easier to reason with.


I don't know....I have been to a couple of places were they have had someone passing leaflets and/or information, and for some reason they are want to turn around when they see me coming.  I have to ask them, as opposed to them just handing me information.  What is that all about?  We have a small Libertarian group in my city.  The head of it is the guy who was all huffy because he put up a flag pole and flew the confederate battle flag.  The neighbors let him know what they thought about that, and he took it down, no one said he couldn't fly his confederate flag, they just let him know what they thought of him, and it. He took it down, then said he would not fly any flag on that pole, not even Old Glory, got all whiny about being persecuted.  Very coulter like.  That is very much the attitude of Libertarians in the northeast.

I don't know....I have been to a couple of places were they have had someone passing leaflets and/or information, and for some reason they are want to turn around when they see me coming.  I have to ask them, as opposed to them just handing me information.  What is that all about?  We have a small Libertarian group in my city.  The head of it is the guy who was all huffy because he put up a flag pole and flew the confederate battle flag.  The neighbors let him know what they thought about that, and he took it down, no one said he couldn't fly his confederate flag, they just let him know what they thought of him, and it. He took it down, then said he would not fly any flag on that pole, not even Old Glory, got all whiny about being persecuted.  Very coulter like.  That is very much the attitude of Libertarians in the northeast.


That would be a regional thing then.  Most Libertarians here aren't exactly fans of the Confederacy.  There are some who believe that Lincoln overstepped his bounds by transforming a voluntary union of states into a mandatory one -- I happen to agree with that stance, but...  I'm not a Confederate sympathizer.

True Libertarians would abhor the institution of slavery just as much as anyone else.  Now, it is true that I believe this guy had every right to fly the Confederate flag, but he apparently doesn't understand that others have the same freedom to criticize him for it.  The freedom of speech is a 2-way street -- something that too many people don't understand.

That would be a regional thing then.  Most Libertarians here aren't exactly fans of the Confederacy.  There are some who believe that Lincoln overstepped his bounds by transforming a voluntary union of states into a mandatory one -- I happen to agree with that stance, but...  I'm not a Confederate sympathizer.
Didn't all those state ratify the U.S. Constitution?  I don't recall a clause that says you can just secede if you want.

True Libertarians would abhor the institution of slavery just as much as anyone else.  Now, it is true that I believe this guy had every right to fly the Confederate flag, but he apparently doesn't understand that others have the same freedom to criticize him for it.  The freedom of speech is a 2-way street -- something that too many people don't understand.



Let me know when you find a True Libertarian nowadays!

Didn't all those state ratify the U.S. Constitution?  I don't recall a clause that says you can just secede if you want.

The 14th Amendment was passed right after the Civil War.  This is the one that explicitly denies secession.  The Constitution was originally a doctrine more directly based on the ideals of the Articles of Confederation -- a completely voluntary union.  The Constitution was more binding in nature, but states still had the right to secede.

The 14th Amendment completely changed this.  Ever since this amendment, the union is now completely binding, unless the majority of the other states allow the secession of a state.

The validity of the 14th Amendment is up for debate because it was passed during Reconstruction -- a period where the South really wasn't represented accurately by the government.  Ratification of this Amendment still depended on the support of a few southern states.  The southern states that would go on to support this amendment were questionable in the validity of their representation of the will of their people.

Let me know when you find a True Libertarian nowadays!



They're quite rare, I'll admit.

Didn't all those state ratify the U.S. Constitution?  I don't recall a clause that says you can just secede if you want.





That is a topic that has been debated and argued and will be argued for a long time.  I actually think that the argument that they should have been able to secede is a credible one.  At times I think it is a question that maybe we should revisit  ::)

David Duke, wow! I never and I mean never thought I would see his face again.

I don't know....I have been to a couple of places were they have had someone passing leaflets and/or information, and for some reason they are want to turn around when they see me coming.  I have to ask them, as opposed to them just handing me information.  What is that all about?  We have a small Libertarian group in my city.  The head of it is the guy who was all huffy because he put up a flag pole and flew the confederate battle flag.  The neighbors let him know what they thought about that, and he took it down, no one said he couldn't fly his confederate flag, they just let him know what they thought of him, and it. He took it down, then said he would not fly any flag on that pole, not even Old Glory, got all whiny about being persecuted.  Very coulter like.  That is very much the attitude of Libertarians in the northeast.


If that guy flew a Confederate battle flag in Amherst, well, I don't have to tell you where that flagpole would end up!
:o

If that guy flew a Confederate battle flag in Amherst, well, I don't have to tell you where that flagpole would end up!
:o


Yeah! no sh*t  ;D ;D

I don't know....I have been to a couple of places were they have had someone passing leaflets and/or information, and for some reason they are want to turn around when they see me coming.  I have to ask them, as opposed to them just handing me information.  What is that all about?  We have a small Libertarian group in my city.  The head of it is the guy who was all huffy because he put up a flag pole and flew the confederate battle flag.  The neighbors let him know what they thought about that, and he took it down, no one said he couldn't fly his confederate flag, they just let him know what they thought of him, and it. He took it down, then said he would not fly any flag on that pole, not even Old Glory, got all whiny about being persecuted.  Very coulter like.  That is very much the attitude of Libertarians in the northeast.


I have mixed feelings about the Confedrate flag.  Yes, it was the flag that slave owners fought under.  However it's also the same flag that thousands of poor white men fought under.  I think old state's right frenzy is probably the closest thing that some modern libertarian can take inspiration from.  Apparently the founding fathers and people like Sam Adams and Paul Revere aren't "good old boy" enough for them.  Most of us don't see a modern use for the Confederate flag except for at Civil War reenactments.

If that guy flew a Confederate battle flag in Amherst, well, I don't have to tell you where that flagpole would end up!
:o


That would hurt. :o

I have mixed feelings about the Confedrate flag.  Yes, it was the flag that slave owners fought under.  However it's also the same flag that thousands of poor white men fought under.  I think old state's right frenzy is probably the closest thing that some modern libertarian can take inspiration from.  Apparently the founding fathers and people like Sam Adams and Paul Revere aren't "good old boy" enough for them.  Most of us don't see a modern use for the Confederate flag except for at Civil War reenactments.


On the other hand, it's the poor who do the actual fighting of all our wars.  Furthermore, the Stars and Bars was not the official flag of the Confederate States of America.

If a libertarian sympathizes with the Confederacy, he is misguided.  Those who developed modern libertarian thought, from Henry David Thoreau to Rose Wilder Lane were vehemently against slavery.  However, I have no doubt that today's corporate libertarians would have no trouble with slavery so long as it isn't they being enslaved!
::)

On the other hand, it's the poor who do the actual fighting of all our wars.  Furthermore, the Stars and Bars was not the official flag of the Confederate States of America.

If a libertarian sympathizes with the Confederacy, he is misguided.  Those who developed modern libertarian thought, from Henry David Thoreau to Rose Wilder Lane were vehemently against slavery.  However, I have no doubt that today's corporate libertarians would have no trouble with slavery so long as it isn't they being enslaved!
::)


Most of the time it's the good old boy, gun toting, beer drinking, xenophobe who use the Confederate flag.  There really wasn't an official flag.  Both Thoreau and Lane although libertarians had a profound sense of equality and justice.  Something which libertarians today lack.

I have mixed feelings about the Confedrate flag.  Yes, it was the flag that slave owners fought under.  However it's also the same flag that thousands of poor white men fought under.  I think old state's right frenzy is probably the closest thing that some modern libertarian can take inspiration from.  Apparently the founding fathers and people like Sam Adams and Paul Revere aren't "good old boy" enough for them.  Most of us don't see a modern use for the Confederate flag except for at Civil War reenactments.


I think it comes down to heritage.  Some people can trace their ancestors back to the Confederacy and feel a certain pride in that.  I myself can trace some of my ancestors to the Confederates and also to the American Revolution, so it's not mutually exclusive.  I am a distant descendant of Alexander Hamilton and George Mason, but I also have more immediate connections to Confederate soldiers.  Now, again, I'm not the kind of guy that flies the Confederate flag, but I do enjoy researching the history of the Civil War and my ancestral connections to it.

Most of the time it's the good old boy, gun toting, beer drinking, xenophobe who use the Confederate flag.  There really wasn't an official flag.  Both Thoreau and Lane although libertarians had a profound sense of equality and justice.  Something which libertarians today lack.


Now wait just a minute.  I'll admit that Libertarians are naive in their views on the environment and their trust in corporations, but both you and Max are making some sweeping generalizations here.

First, to Max, why would Libertarians support slavery?

Second, what makes you say that Libertarians lack a sense of equality and justice?  They're against affirmative action, because any favoritism toward a race is wrong.  That's supporting equality more than Democrats do.  They're against the Patriot Act just like the Democrats usually are, because they realize that the right to privacy is important and so is the due process of law.  That's supporting justice.

Now wait just a minute.  I'll admit that Libertarians are naive in their views on the environment and their trust in corporations, but both you and Max are making some sweeping generalizations here.

First, to Max, why would Libertarians support slavery?

I do not hear libertarians speaking up against the exploitation of labor by U.S. corporations in the Third World.  This is not slavery, but it's almost there.  There is indeed definitive slavery in the world today, but the Libertarian Party does not seem to concern itself with it.

Second, what makes you say that Libertarians lack a sense of equality and justice?  They're against affirmative action, because any favoritism toward a race is wrong.  That's supporting equality more than Democrats do.  They're against the Patriot Act just like the Democrats usually are, because they realize that the right to privacy is important and so is the due process of law.  That's supporting justice.



What I'm saying is the spiritual emphasis of libertarianism is gone.  It's all about taxes and property rights.  Certainly, these are central libertarian concerns, but without a moral compass, they end up like the Ayn Randroids: Might makes right.  I got mine and f.u. go get yours.

I am skeptical of the anti-affirmative action sentiment because the white man did not seem to have a problem when the black man and the brown man were excluded as a matter of course.  As far as "classical liberalism" was concerned (and that is the philosophy from which today's libertarianism is mostly derived) it was the immutable order of the natural world that the white man was superior and the rich man's virtue was manifested in his wealth; the poor were of inferior stock and it was moral to let them die off.  Libertarians today would categorically deny both foregoing premises because progressive thinkers have made them socially unpalatable; however, among libertarians I still see remnants of the "classical liberalism" of a century past. 

I think it comes down to heritage.  Some people can trace their ancestors back to the Confederacy and feel a certain pride in that.  I myself can trace some of my ancestors to the Confederates and also to the American Revolution, so it's not mutually exclusive.  I am a distant descendant of Alexander Hamilton and George Mason, but I also have more immediate connections to Confederate soldiers.  Now, again, I'm not the kind of guy that flies the Confederate flag, but I do enjoy researching the history of the Civil War and my ancestral connections to it.



I think we talked about this before, cousin   :)  I got into The War beginning with Ken Burns.  The Museum of the Confederacy has a fantastic seminar about the different flags of the Confederacy.  This is part 4 and explains the battle flags, but if interested try to watch them all.  The people at the Museum are top of the line.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s52K5VC1F94&feature=related

The flag the neo confederates fly under the guise of heritage is the Battle Flag of the Army of Tennessee.  Soldiers not from the Army of Tennessee wouldn't gather under that flag and if they were here today, they would look for their own flag. People who say they fly it because of heritage do not know as much about their heritage as they would like anyone to believe.

I am skeptical of the anti-affirmative action sentiment because the white man did not seem to have a problem when the black man and the brown man were excluded as a matter of course.  As far as "classical liberalism" was concerned (and that is the philosophy from which today's libertarianism is mostly derived) it was the immutable order of the natural world that the white man was superior and the rich man's virtue was manifested in his wealth; the poor were of inferior stock and it was moral to let them die off.  Libertarians today would categorically deny both foregoing premises because progressive thinkers have made them socially unpalatable; however, among libertarians I still see remnants of the "classical liberalism" of a century past. 


And in the U.S. these attitudes were augmented by what Max Weber called the Protestant erthic, i.e. Puritanism.

I do not hear libertarians speaking up against the exploitation of labor by U.S. corporations in the Third World.  This is not slavery, but it's almost there.  There is indeed definitive slavery in the world today, but the Libertarian Party does not seem to concern itself with it.

Good point, but the Libertarians generally focus on domestic issues.  They take an isolationist stance on foreign policy.  In certain ways, I think this is a good thing.  The last 2 decades seem to be indicative of far too much interventionism.

On the other hand, I will agree that they have a blindside to this sort of exploitation.  I think the tricky part comes when you consider that, although these people are being exploited, their lives before exploitation were pretty crappy too.

Let me give an example.  Right now, China is getting Africans in countries like Sudan to do very dangerous and crude work that aims to extract precious metals from ore and from industrial waste.  This is highly toxic work, but before the Chinese came, these people were starving and had no work at all.  So, even though it's clear they are being exploited, you have to ask yourself what's worse -- being exploited or starving?

Sadly, this is how desperate a lot of the world is.

What I'm saying is the spiritual emphasis of libertarianism is gone.  It's all about taxes and property rights.  Certainly, these are central libertarian concerns, but without a moral compass, they end up like the Ayn Randroids: Might makes right.  I got mine and f.u. go get yours.

I am skeptical of the anti-affirmative action sentiment because the white man did not seem to have a problem when the black man and the brown man were excluded as a matter of course.  As far as "classical liberalism" was concerned (and that is the philosophy from which today's libertarianism is mostly derived) it was the immutable order of the natural world that the white man was superior and the rich man's virtue was manifested in his wealth; the poor were of inferior stock and it was moral to let them die off.  Libertarians today would categorically deny both foregoing premises because progressive thinkers have made them socially unpalatable; however, among libertarians I still see remnants of the "classical liberalism" of a century past. 


Good points, but I think the point here is that affirmative action has clearly lived well past its usefulness.  I mentioned in another thread that a lot of what this program does is cause rich minorities to compete with poor ones.  To me, that says that the program should be based solely on poverty, not race.  Help people according to need, not skin color.

Whatever the origins of Libertarianism might be, the present situation we face requires certain changes to policy that require a sense of realism in addition to fairness.  It's not as simple as saying "black people are second class" anymore.  If you're a rich black person, you're doing quite well for yourself and considerably better than a poor white person.

I think we talked about this before, cousin   :)  I got into The War beginning with Ken Burns.  The Museum of the Confederacy has a fantastic seminar about the different flags of the Confederacy.  This is part 4 and explains the battle flags, but if interested try to watch them all.  The people at the Museum are top of the line.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s52K5VC1F94&feature=related

The flag the neo confederates fly under the guise of heritage is the Battle Flag of the Army of Tennessee.  Soldiers not from the Army of Tennessee wouldn't gather under that flag and if they were here today, they would look for their own flag. People who say they fly it because of heritage do not know as much about their heritage as they would like anyone to believe.

Good points.  Cousin, eh?  Are you related to Hamilton or Mason?  :)

I think it comes down to heritage.  Some people can trace their ancestors back to the Confederacy and feel a certain pride in that.  I myself can trace some of my ancestors to the Confederates and also to the American Revolution, so it's not mutually exclusive.  I am a distant descendant of Alexander Hamilton and George Mason, but I also have more immediate connections to Confederate soldiers.  Now, again, I'm not the kind of guy that flies the Confederate flag, but I do enjoy researching the history of the Civil War and my ancestral connections to it.



So why doesn't the Sons of the Confederacy have more members than they do?  I've noticed there's a difference between people who honor their kin that fought in the War of Northern Aggression and those who see symbols of the confederacy as a symbol of chic white pride.  One is based historically and the other is based out of false egoism.  Do you get all misty eyed when you see currency with Hamilton on it?  I know I probably would.  I do Civil War research.  Found out I'm related to General Francis C. Barlow.  People kind of look at me weird when I hug his statue at Gettysburg. :D

And in the U.S. these attitudes were augmented by what Max Weber called the Protestant erthic, i.e. Puritanism.


Those were my ancestors, Massachusetts Puritans. 
::)

Good points.   Cousin, eh?  Are you related to Hamilton or Mason?  :)



My Virginia ancestors were Randolphs, Winstons and Lees, so, given the incestous nature of the "First Families of Virginia" I would say that somewhere on the Mason your side we would see common ancestor. 

So why doesn't the Sons of the Confederacy have more members than they do? 



Those guys  ::)  They have a campaign going that states there were actually thousands of African Americans on the side of the Confederacy.  So I asked one of them if there were so many African Americans in the Confederacy why weren't there any African Americans in the Sons of the Confederacy.  Never did get a reply on that one.

Those guys  ::)   They have a campaign going that states there were actually thousands of African Americans on the side of the Confederacy.  So I asked one of them if there were so many African Americans in the Confederacy why weren't there any African Americans in the Sons of the Confederacy.  Never did get a reply on that one.


Where the hell are they getting their records from?  The only African-American troops were Union.  it's an attempt to be politically correct not historically accurate.  Who that guy who's about 80 that says his great-grandfather a slave also fought willingly for the Confederacy?  They used to drag him out like a horse and pony show back when the reb flag debate was in full swing.

So why doesn't the Sons of the Confederacy have more members than they do?  I've noticed there's a difference between people who honor their kin that fought in the War of Northern Aggression and those who see symbols of the confederacy as a symbol of chic white pride.  One is based historically and the other is based out of false egoism.  Do you get all misty eyed when you see currency with Hamilton on it?  I know I probably would.  I do Civil War research.  Found out I'm related to General Francis C. Barlow.  People kind of look at me weird when I hug his statue at Gettysburg. :D

Good points...  I suppose I should clarify.  I do enjoy history, but I'm not sentimental.  I enjoy researching the Civil War, but for me, it's not so much a matter of pride as it is a matter of curiosity.

I mentioned the pride thing to explain some of the actions of Confederate sympathizers, but admittedly, some of them are just hiding behind heritage to support prejudice (what Danoota had said earlier).

Where the hell are they getting their records from?  The only African-American troops were Union.  it's an attempt to be politically correct not historically accurate.  Who that guy who's about 80 that says his great-grandfather a slave also fought willingly for the Confederacy?  They used to drag him out like a horse and pony show back when the reb flag debate was in full swing.


I don't know if you're talking about the same guy, but there is one older black man that walks around Asheville, NC who is dressed in Confederate regalia and carries the flag with him.

He's a pretty strange guy, but Asheville is a strange place.

I don't know if you're talking about the same guy, but there is one older black man that walks around Asheville, NC who is dressed in Confederate regalia and carries the flag with him.

He's a pretty strange guy, but Asheville is a strange place.



Yep, that's the guy.

Those guys  ::)   They have a campaign going that states there were actually thousands of African Americans on the side of the Confederacy.  So I asked one of them if there were so many African Americans in the Confederacy why weren't there any African Americans in the Sons of the Confederacy.  Never did get a reply on that one.


Dontcha know they was fightin' 'coz they wanted to git home to work for massa s'more!  They's like that them people, they happier that way. 
::)