Here, use this to build some more arguments with. lol.
Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent Ron Paul, the Texas congressman stirring up the Republican presidential contest with his libertarian-leaning views and online fundraising prowess, left the door open Sunday to running as an independent, should he not win the Republican nomination.
Paul, who has railed against excessive federal spending, also defended his own earmarks to benefit his congressional district into spending bills, likening them to a "tax credit" for his constituents. He added that his position was consistent because he ultimately voted against the spending measures.
And he decried the Civil War, calling it a needless effort for which hundreds of thousands of Americans paid with their lives. He rejected that the war spelled the end to slavery in the United States, saying that the U.S. government could have simply bought the slaves from the Confederate States of America and freed them.
During a one-on-one interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert challenged Paul particularly hard on the earmarks, saying that the congressman inserted them because he knew the bills would pass even with Paul voting no.
"When you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in ... the spending bills, I think you'll be consistent," Russert said, one of his most direct criticisms of a candidate in recent memory.
Paul said that while the chance of his running as an independent was slim, "I deserve one wiggle now and then." He ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988.
Paul also reviewed his no-government approach on a range of issues, including what he called the ill-advised involvement of the U.S. military in the Civil War.
Russert said, if it weren't for the Civil War, there'd still be slavery.
"Oh, come on," Paul replied. "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
That is beautifully worded. That from a native Atlantan who grew up in the land that Sherman charred, and who has older relatives who still spit on the ground after speaking his name.
I watched Meet the Press yesterday, and I KNEW this would happen. That was the very reason Paul (whom I do not support), was reluctant to answer Russert’s “gotcha” question. He was well aware that if he didn’t categorically say he would not ever run as an independent, that the MSM would run with this as if he had actually stated he would run. Why can’t the stupid pundits leave the candidates with a little room to maneuver depending on future events?
That was a rhetorical question. I know exactly why the MSM acts the way they do. And it’s disgusting.
I understand what you say. As for not being able to afford the compensation one wonders how it compares to the total cost of the War (for both North and South). Still, there was little incentive for the plantation system to modernize without federal compensation. And the Constitution purists would argue, what gives them the right? So I don’t think it was just a matter of the North being too cheap to pay off for Southern investment in slaves. And then there’s the argument that the South made a bad investment and why should the feds bail them out?
And mostly blocked -- though there were, of course, smugglers -- by the Royal Navy. Gotta give the Brits their full and fair credit.
Not to nit-pick, but the Constitution did not ban importation of slaves after 1808. It prohibited the government from considering such a ban until then. One of the many compromises in the Constitutional Convention. As soon as that deadline passed, the importation of slaves was prohibited by an act of Congress.
Exactly and "right on the money". As it turned out it was a bad investment. Especially by people who believe these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In those days, Federal bailouts for bad investment decisions weren't so popular.
I am quite sure that then as now, there would be judges on both sides that would argue the legality under the Constitution of secession. Other issues would include whether or not federal property held in seceding States could be reclaimed without compensation.
That is so true. The civil war was all about economics. The North trying to strangle the South. The slavery issue was the coverup and the distraction.
Sort of like the History channel the other day regarding Nathan Bedford Forest. Not one of them has gotten to story right. NBF did start the KKK; but it was to stop the carpetbaggers who were raping the South after the war. He did not start the KKK to do horrible things(although it eventually did)to blacks. He got out when he realized what it had turned into. The carpetbaggers were the scrooge of the war; not the KKK. The History channel was a Confederate bad; Union good propoganda program.
It is unfortunate that the Civil War could not have been about the horrors of slavery of the black people; but it was not. It was as usual about control, economics and power. The North wanted to kill off the South because they were getting too rich and powerful.
See any similarity to today?
It’s also like blaming the market crash of 29 on Hoover. It wasn’t Hoover; it was the bankers; politicians and ruthless businesspeople who caused that.
Let’s put the real blame where it belongs.
Not all of it.
He did. But was apparently lying.
“The North wanted to kill off the South because they were getting too rich and powerful.
See any similarity to today?”
Yep, now it’s the middle class being targeted.
Ron Paul is nothing but some Moveon.org candidate masquerading around as a GOP’er. It’s time to turn that campaign over on its head and show it for what its really about.
Are all those who do not align with your own view for the next US President, idiots, morons, nuts, fascists? That seems borderline stable to me.
Was the civil war conducted perfectly? WWI in trenches? WWII on beaches? Korea above the 38th in winter with light uniforms? Vietnam from Washington? I find the march to Baghdad one of the most brilliant military operations of all time but the aftermath has been less stellar.
The point is there may have been numerous ways of conducting these conflicts that may have led to a resolution.
Nonsense? RP accepting Soros money?
http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/g/d5f88bd0-b497-4673-96b1-cb0629febfe3
Here, use this to build some more arguments with. lol.
really? are you sure? cause at this point freepers have been moaning that all his support comes from the left..and if that’s true his candidacy would hurt them now wouldn’t it? That said...anyone willing to vote for him in the general, wasn’t going to vote for your candidate anyway.
Yeah! He’ll do anything in his power to deep-six the USA.
Like him joining the “unconstitutional” Air Force (which I have no problem imho)..
Also I think Britain would have tried to retake the Union and the Confederacy had we stayed divided..
The problem in the 1860s though was that the slave investments had been made over the past two hundred years by the planters’ forefathers, and they were stuck with the economic system that they inherited.
http://moveon.meetup.com/cities/us/dc/washington/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.