Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
Free pocket protectors.
Because you retards are don't realize how implementing his libertarian policies would eliminate all of your jobs since 99.9% of all computers are used to spy on/track people.
In fact he has claimed several times he made a promise to his wife he will not.
Exactly what part of the Constitution defines how a State can cancel the deal? It is an interesting discussion.
Wow. A Ron Paul thread AND a WBTS thread in one place? WOOHOO!
*sits back, grabs popcorn*
}:-)4
Ron Paul is another goof ball just like Ross Perot. Lest we forget that Perot gave us Clinton twice! We can only pray that he is “beamed up” before he has the chance to ensure another Clinton in the Whitehouse.
True but the legal tender of the economy was slaves.
“I deserve one wiggle now and then.”
Aside from creating a horrible visual, this is a very scary statement from a Presidential candidate.
How would Bloomberg & Paul if they each ran independent hurt any republican? What (R) would vote for these two?
Well, then shouldn't he be in the Democratic primary?
Huck....you know quite well that England compensated.
But the park of the war had more to do with the expansion of slvery than slavery.
I think his comments are pretty unusual for someone to challenge the conventional wisdom.
but....he’s way off on so much stuff..geez
“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.”
Paul said, “”Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world.”
I agree with Paul that slavery could have been ended without the war. But the Civil war wasn’t all about slavery, and Lincoln wasn’t really concerned with ‘slavery’. Paul shows a troubling lack of historical fact with this statement:
“He [Paul] said that Abraham Lincoln made a mistake by going to war to free the slaves “
If he actually said this, it’s unfortunate. Lincoln didn’t go to war to free the slaves. He went to war because he was attacked and to squash a rebellion and put the South in their unrepresented place mostly for economic advantage for the North. The emancipation came TWO years after the war started. He had no presidential power to free the slaves. Maybe Ron thinks he did, just like he thinks he can do all that stuff some so want to believe he can. HE CANNOT. Lincoln did it as Commander in chief to confiscate the assets (slaves) of the Confederacy. The only slaves ‘freed’ were the ones in confederate states, not the entire ‘union’.
“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United Stead shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion....And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity.”
Paul is not a constitutionalist but a con man. INDEED! The nonsense above is exactly what con men blather, not principled people.
Not many. They would attrack more democrats.
Republicans looking for an excuse to be against a war that was authorized by Congress but not "declared".
Exactly what part of the Constitution defines how a State can cancel the deal? It is an interesting discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The actual constitution (as opposed to some goofball interpretation) says that all powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, therefore the only legitimate question is where is the power given to the federal government to stop secession.
I believe it was simply an assumed power like the power to force the states to legalize abortions, I don’t see where either power was actually granted by the constitution.
Actually, they would have had a better option, had that been the case. It was more expensive to keep and maintain a slave, with the initial investment always at risk than it was to just hire someone. For this reason, the most dangerous jobs were not done by slaves, but usually immigrants, fairly fresh off the boat (Often Irish around the time of the war).
Why would they have done that?
To get out from under the costs of feeding, clothing, housing and providing health care for not only the slaves in the workforce, but their children as well--unitl they, too could work, and by being compensated for manumission, they would recoup some of their initial investment as well.
As it turns out, the owners were divested of what had been their lawful property without compensation.
And further, the war was fought to preserve the union--the issue was the legitimacy of secession, not slavery.
No argument there, but ask a few high schoolers abou that, and chances are they'll give you the PC version that the war was fought over slavery, not States' Rights (of which secession from these United States was assumed to be one, at least by Southerners).
that was my first thought....but there are quite a few here that think just like Tim and obviously never heard of compensated emancipation.
Civil War is a hotly debated topic round these parts....I thought Paul's comments really wild.
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.