And a search for mises.org yields 851,000 meaning those account for <1% even if you add them all up which doesn't make sense.

Now try restricting those searches to content posted in the last year. You'll find that there aren't many hits at all and most of those are actually comments, not actual content.

/edit zomg I just searched: "nazi site:forumserver.twoplustwo.com" and came up with >800 hits. I need to quit posting in the den of hate.

'An end to legal... homosexuality' seems like it would be pretty discriminatory.

way to miss the point

Nice rambling. My question was only to people who have officially joined one of these groups that seem to have pandered to racists in the past and if they had any misgiving about it. I have no desire whatsoever to read anything that these groups write.

so? When there is a "legitimate" state, people of that state can chose to open or close borders as they wish. What is the problem here?
chtrl+f reveals that it comes form vix quote and then dvaut and mjkidd discussed it.

2790 for "civil war"
47 for "war of northern"

Do you have some other parameters in your search? I get 5910 for 'civil war' and 1310 for 'war of northern'.

Lol, i get 550. Are you doing a domain specific search?

the "" will show when the words are in the sequence that is within the quotes. So "war of northern" will only return entries that contain that sequence of words rather than "when I was driving through northern Massachusetts, I stopped and ate a plate of oysters. Soon afterward, my digestive system declared war on me."

FWIW I think this is a fools errand, most of these searches "war of northern" and "civil war" could come up with a whole lot of false positives, unless you do what mjkidd did, but then that's probably too strict.

Just putting the words in the search box at the top of their main page.

Edit: Ah, I see mj. Didn't think of that and looks like DVaut saw the same thing.

Sorry, put the wrong word in (should have been segregation). Obviously, making homosexuality illegal is the opposite of libertarian.

T50: I see. So we're clear I wasn't trying to say it was, just going back to that list of things you posted as their platform. I noticed your different bolding/underlining/coloring sequence to help me know which ones were compatible or not :P

...and hence place sanctions upon their citizens.

Then why did you bring it up in response to me?

You're being very very very pretentious. Fly brought it up and no one feels the need to hide a view point because it's shared by other people who are racist. A lot of us have been here for years going at over and over and over. You have no moral high ground because you have argued some people into some awful silly positions. You're still not able to separate abstract concepts that are applicable to historic events without allowing static situations of the historic event to cloud your judgment of it. That's fine though, libertarians who are trying really hard to be political strategist know that most people struggle with this as well and wanna use it to gain votes.(that's me admitting to libertarians(LRC obv, and tom dlilenzorio(sp)) using racism without implying that any of them are racists)

"the civil war" |"war of northern" | "confederacy"

1500 results

the

79500 results

So probably about 2% of Mises.org content has something to do with the american civil war.

edit: hmmm, but "the civil war" has over 1800 results. I thought | meant or....

OK I got this search which makes it closer to 3.5% of Mises content has something to do with the civil war. The exact phrase "civil war" and then one of a bunch of words.

Results 1 - 10 of about 2570 for Lincoln OR davis OR lee OR forrest OR Grant OR Sherman OR slave OR slavery OR confederacy "civil war "

Well, people pander. They are politicians(in the case of most libertarians it's wannabe politicians) playing a simple game, what do you expect? You're unable to click a link and evaluate an argument? The onus is on you to do the thinking, not to explain away resource material because of an unknown percentage of their material being wrong about something irrelevant to the issues presented. The means by which people can wave off misses would mean that pretty much anything not written by a biologist in the modern era is unusable racist.

I would wager that the majority of that has to do with economics though. They are always talking about monetary policy/inflation/price controls/etc. during the civil war and also how the civil war lead to growth of the government.

This is ridiculous and again, I think I was at clear as the English language allows in this post that "separating the abstract concepts without allowing static situation of the historical event clouding your judgment" is just the worst kind of casuistry. It's for people who want to dishonestly do the "I support the South's secession but NOT slavery" bit. It's for people who want to dishonestly do the "I support the War in Iraq but NOT civilian deaths" bit. It's for people who want to dishonestly do the "I support unfettered access to abortions but NOT abortions" bit. Just because I'm pointing out these simple logical errors (I mean really simple, this isn't even especially tricky) and it's embarrassing for people who do the whole "I support the South's secession but NOT slavery" to admit it.

You have no leg to stand on here, and the whole "you're pretentious/You're still not able to separate abstract concepts that are applicable to historic events without allowing static situations of the historic event to cloud your judgment of it" bit is preeeeettty ironic in light of your inability to misunderstand this simple bit of logic time and time again while anointing yourself arbiter of who has the moral high ground.

I'm still not seeing the issue here. I've yet to see anything racist written by Tom DiLorenzo or Tom Woods (who apparently isn't even involved in the LoS anymore anyway). Yeah, the LoS has some racists in it (probably more than some other organizations), so what? How on earth does that equate to the LvMI as being "filled with racists?" This whole charge has been one giant guilty by association fallacy after another and it is pretty absurd.

I'm affiliated with the NRA, which probably has its fair share of racists in it too. Does that mean that the NRA is a racist organization, or that I am guilty of racism by association? Give me a ****ing break.

Yes but they still may be putting this Civil War associated stuff on the website to try to get people who might see it linked to on a LOTS forum to read the other 96% of stuff.

http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=subject

let's just browse by subject since there ought to be a section dedicated to the civil war or something right? It's so darn important to these mises folk, I'll be knee deep in code words after a couple clicks.

http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=subject&Id=121

Checking their section on history actually reveals....an article on slavery!!! Let's find code words!!

http://mises.org/resources/2730

Best part is the conclusion imo. That's where they do the retracing of their steps to show that they're not really against slavery when they are just pretending to be libertarians when they are just paleoconservatives hiding out waiting for the perfect time to strike and turn the world back to 1950s America.

lol fun game

I know you like to be all super-vague and never really name names, but I want to know exactly who you're talking about here. My complaint isn't about attacks on rockwell/rothbard/mises. It's a pretty good system you've got running here.

1) point out group X is full of bozos
2) link group Y to group X
3) insinuate that Y must also be full of bozos
4) when called on it, say "hey why do you want to defend group X, which is full of bozos?"
5) ignore calls for showing that Y is full of bozos

I'm not waving off mises because I think they are racist, I "wave them off" because nobody has given me a good reason to read anything there. And you are not really making relevant points. I don't need to read anything there because people who support that site admit that some things were racist and that this was done in an attempt to pander.

It's almost like the people I'm often referring to are EXTREMELY SENSITIVE (to put it nicely) and have very itchy mod notification trigger fingers, and the mods here aren't the kind of people who can dependably read a thread and determine what's actually a personal attack.

It's a pretty good system you've got running here:

1) link to some questionable racist people
2) when called out on that and called out by name, call the mods to ban/infract/delete for a personal attack/broad based ideology attack and then have then sometimes act on it, depending on which mods gets to it and how lazy they feel that day

Unfortunately some mods are still a mod here, so no, I won't be naming names.