Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent (views on Civil War)

Wash Post ^ | 12-24-2007 | Goldfarb

[wardaddy]

This race really brings out all the friction and tension to the right of center. I don't much cotton to Paul but I do find his comments on slavery and it's ending interesting.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

I thought he had vowed previously that he wouldn’t make a third party run?

[nyyankeefan]

Paul Won’t Rule Out Run as Independent (views on Civil War)...

this a-hole will ensure the piaps ascendancy back to the White House!!!

what a maroon!!!

[NonValueAdded]

Yea, he’ll run as a third-party but he won’t vote for himself. That will make it OK.

[Huck]

saying that the U.S. government could have simply bought the slaves from the Confederate States of America and freed them.

What an idiot. The slaves were privately owned. They weren't owned by the CSA. Surely those whose income depended on slave labor wouldn't have sold out their labor force to the enemy. Why would they have done that? And further, the war was fought to preserve the union--the issue was the legitimacy of secession, not slavery. This comment is retarded on so many levels.

The southern states needed to preserve the slave system, which is why they bolted. The north needed to preserve the Union, because they were sworn to uphold the constitution. End of story. Ron Paul is a moron.

[AmericaUnited]

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.

And what if they did'nt want to sell? It's this kooky, simplistic thinking that makes him extremely dangerous.

[RipSawyer]

I don’t much cotton to Paul but I do find his comments on slavery and it’s ending interesting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Only a complete fool would say that without the Civil war there would still be slavery in this country! I thought Russert had more brains.

[Huck]

He’s playing to a niche market. Racists, confederate apologists, antisemtites, retarded IT workers, etc.

[be-baw]

He said something like there is a 99.9% chance that he won't run as a third party candidate, and he won't say no chance because he doesn't like to speak in absolutes.

So, CNN and Washington Post are spinning it to make it sound like there's more of a chance...probably just to get folks here bent out of shape. I'm surprised how many are buying it.

[silentreignofheroes]

Reckon the North could have kept their slaves,,,

[rhombus]

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.

This seems extremely naive. Wasn't the point that many "simply" didn't want to sell their slaves to the U.S. government?

[Shady]

I think he’s a nut.

[AmericaUnited]

This comment is retarded on so many levels.

Even though what you say makes perfect sense to anyone with two functioning brain cells, that still does not keep you from being an agent of the big fascist interests... /sarcasm

[jjw]

He’s playing to a niche market. Racists, confederate apologists, antisemtites, retarded IT workers, etc.

huh? what's he got to offer us retarted IT workers?

[Huck]

libertarian utopianism.

[freekitty]

Dr. Paul better go back and read his history. The civil war was not about slavery. It was about economics.

[RipSawyer]

The north needed to preserve the Union, because they were sworn to uphold the constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Interesting comment, exactly what part of the constitution required the northern states to go to war to prevent secession?

[Huck]

that still does not keep you from being an agent of the big fascist interests.,

I am so busted. The Jooz made me do it!

[rhombus]

The slaves were privately owned. They weren't owned by the CSA. Surely those whose income depended on slave labor wouldn't have sold out their labor force to the enemy. Why would they have done that? And further, the war was fought to preserve the union--the issue was the legitimacy of secession, not slavery. This comment is retarded on so many levels.

I expect that those whose incomes depended on slave labor would have sold their slaves to the U.S. Gov't, bred some more and then sold some more. How long would that cycle have lasted?

[msg-84]

Paul’s notion that the Confederacy could have been bought off (as though they would not have restocked their slave inventory) is great insight in how he would deal with Islamic radicals. Surely they can be bought off too - at least until the next time, when the price goes up logarithmically.