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 ...
Yes... it was satire :)
(Hey, Compadre! How the heck are you doing? ;>)
Where, precisely, does the Constitution prohibit State secession? The north may have felt some need to "preserve the Union," but the Constitution certainly did not require it...
;>)
There have been at least four incarnations of the Ku Klux Klan.
The first was during Reconstruction, when it was basically a vigilante group. The war had been brutal, and the occupying Union troops were loath to protect the former Confederates, so they took matters into their own hands. That was Gen. Forrest's KKK. Certainly, there were abuses; they were vigilantes. I don't support vigilantes, and don't have a lot of kind words to say, but vigilantes are different from terrorists.
The second was built around the Knights of Mary Mallon, the folks who lynched Leo Frank. The founding ceremony of the second Klan was on Stone Mountain, in Georgia, in 1919 (or thereabouts). The second Klan targeted not just blacks but Jews, Catholics and immigrants, and reached out beyond the South to find a national audience. That is the Klan that you see in the old photos of huge marches on Washington. That version of the Klan was discredited and almost disappeared after Indiana governor D.C. Stephenson, a prominent Klan leader, raped a woman to death. SHe lived long enough to name her attacker.
Klan 3.0 rose in the 1950s out of support for segregation and opposition to the Civil Rights movement. That's an old familiar story I won't belabor.
Klan 4.0, the one around today, is pretty much a relic. The real action among the bigot glitterati is in the Aryan Nation or the Christian Identity movement. Swastikas are the hip thing this season; burning crosses are so last week.
Indeed. In addition, the comments seem to indicate that he believes they could be “purchased” - ergo, human beings being the property of others was a legitimate business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think you can equate buying slaves for the purpose of freeing them with buying slaves to use them. Many people have bought relatives out of slavery, that certainly does not imply that they believed slavery was a legitimate business.
Don’t you mean when the price goes up exponentially?
Yes, it was a vigilant group; but they had to do something with the horrors of the carpetbaggers after the war.
Save the "moral/view equivalence" for those without brains. Repeat after me: "Not all viewpoints are worthy of respect. Some ARE downright KOOKY!"
Told ya...
Yeah, that would have stopped them. Drugs are illegal, yet drug traffickers import them because they can sell them for a profit. Slavery being forbidden by the constitution in 1808 would not have stopped the importing of slaves for sale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The two are not the same! Any purchase of slaves would have been like buying up gold to stop circulation, there would have been a time limit and after expiration it would have been illegal to hold a slave, anyone caught doing so would have been imprisoned and his slaves freed. Why would you think the government would just keep buying up unlimited numbers of slaves like a drug addict buying cocaine? The whole idea is more absurd than anything Ron Paul said!
Hey pal. I’m sure we’ve been around the block a few times on the subject. No need to rehash it now. On a related subject, I just reread Washington’s farewell address today. He touches on the subject of preserving the union, regional factions, etc. Excellent stuff.
So a couple thousand dollars in contributions may have come from Soros. What about the other 12+ million by the 100,000 or so individuals with a median contribution of $50?
“Even before the civil war, it was clear that the Northern model of sweatshops and wage slavery was far more efficient.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A fact which escapes many, jrooney seems to think that any plantation owner who sold his slaves would have been forced out of business! Having witnessed neighbors who sharecropped in the fifties I can certainly believe that sharecropping was a better deal for a landowner than slavery ever was and considering what hired farm labor was paid in the nineteenth century it is hard to believe slavery was ever started as a way to hold down labor costs, it was more likely started due to the LACK of available labor. Paying large sums for people who wanted to run away at the first opportunity and who could die of disease, accident, snakebite etc. or simply become disabled seems a poor way to save on wages. Slaves on the plantations where the owner took good care of his livestock (which is what they were considered to be) probably had an easier time than most poor whites of the same era. I can state firsthand that as recently as the 1950’s many whites in the south did hard labor that is unimaginable to most people today. They could not have worked much harder without collapsing. Most privates in the confederate army would probably have collapsed in helpless laughter at the idea that they were fighting to preserve their right to own a slave, a possibility that was almost as remote as the average worker’s aspiring to own the Biltmore house today.
A similar problem faced by every generation. Too bad it took a war to resolve.
What cost $1500. in 1860 would cost $32488.05 in 2006.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1860,
they would cost you $1500. and $69.26 respectively.
Do you want to do another calculation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to this inflation calculatoe $1500. was a LOT MORE THAN you say in today’s money and I suspect the calculator understates it considerably. It is certain that a small farm could have been bought for $1500. in those days and even much later on, perhaps even just after WWII. A slave was indeed an expensive purchase. I remember when my uncle bought a new one row farm tractor with equipment for $1200. a Ford 8N tractor which was once the most popular model sold new for $600. more than eighty years after the end of the civil war.
No, not all of it. But enough of the big money special interest to control Southern legislators who voted to preserve and expand the plantation economic system. The average Southerner didn't have slaves and didn't care much about the plantation system. For them is was about States rights, the "Second Revolution" against federal tyranny and being invaded by "damn Yankees". The plantation special interests had a huge incentive to promote these "outrages".
That is beautifully worded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, too bad it had nothing to do with what he was actually replying to!
I think Ron is referring to Eminent Domain. This was discussed prior to the Civil War.
Libertarian.
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.