Replies

Interesting that you and many other label someone with whom they disagree as a nut, loon, or kook, etc.

Obviously you do that because you cannot discuss or debate those ideas without resorting to name calling.

The current freeper culture is to slam and label anyone who doesn’t drink the koolaid and is afraid to look at differing points of view.

I’ll bet that you actually agree with him more than you want to admit! I’ll bet you prefer lower taxes, as well as smaller and less intrusive government.

It is a pity that the meme is to marginalize him instead of work with him on areas of agreement.

But hey, guess it is more popular to mock him than look for points of agreement and work from there.

I don't call Ron Paul a kook because I disagree with him, but because of what he says.

His pronouncements are at such odds with reality that one must question his implicit assumptions and wonder ‘what starting place and what direction could lead to such a bizarre destination?’ ; and thus we surmise that the man is a bit of a loon.

How I wish that a long serving member of Congress who speaks of the Constitution, lower taxes, and a smaller less intrusive government were a more credible spokesman for those causes.

But unfortunately Ron Paul is a loon.

Oh please!
Have you have ever actually read anything on the Civil War or the politics of the Antebellum period? If you have you would know that just buying up the slaves was not in the cards or even possible. Something along those lines was floated as part of the founding of Liberia. Lincoln in meeting with free black leaders during the war even suggested it, for he couldn't see how after the injuires of slavery and Southern resentment for the war how the two races could ever live it peace. (I assume this was during one of Lincoln's more morose moments where he doubted humanity's capability to actually do the right thing!)

It was suggested by anti-slavery politicians and organizations multiple times and was always met with howls of indignation both North and South.

Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, in fact he said multiple times if he could preserve the Union by freeing no slaves, all slaves or some slaves he would do so.
Now its another issue as to whether Lincoln had the right to preserve the Union by force. Unfortunately the Civil War was probably unavoidable, from my study of that era the real raping of the Constitution was started in Reconstruction, then went industrial strength with both Roosevelts. When Paul first appeared on my political horizon I was quite intrigued. My first reaction was perhaps another Phil Crane type of Constitutionalist, but after several years of listening and reading some of his writings (like his newsletter) its clear he is in his "own world" and its not a rational one!