We need Tim Russert back.

Brazil has the shittiest, most divided politics in the world and it has been this way for all its 500 years. We didn’t need a civil war to end slavery.

Well, but then it would have saved 650,000 lives at a fraction of the cost of the civil war, not to mention reconstruction.  Do you think the war was better?  England did it with the bailout, after all.

So I guess that the final cost of the civil war in money, lives, and devastation wouldn’t have been worth a few billion dollars. Also remember that slave owners back then are the people we call farmers. giving them the money to pay for machinery or real employees would insure a food crop was produced in America.

Nancy Grace nipslip (NSFW!) and a link to Wikipedia. What a site.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul
 

the why behind the smear.

read this and pass it on

Getting mad? get real. go Ron Paul in 2012.

Dig dig! And what did you find? A big fat nothing!

This is only a testimony of his complete and consistent anti-war stand.

“The British bailout plan that Paul refers to freed 40,000 slaves, at a cost of £20 million, 40% of the government’s total annual expenditure. There were almost four million slaves in the US when the Civil War began.”

I’m sorry Tommy, I’m no mathamagician, but the Civil War ended up costing around 6-7 billion + the 600,000 american lives… so… it actually cost more than the cost of buying all 4 million slaves would have… right?  and the whole mass casualty thing…

The Union should have bailed out slaveholders to the cost of one bullet, personally delivered to the slaveholder’s brain. In the event the slaveholder had a family (not included the children of raped slaves), they could all be lined up and share another bullet.

We could trade Ron Paul for Tim.

The neocon media is terrified at the swelling Ron Paul support among blacks.
CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyRVa4lzRo&feature=player_embedded
__________________________
Ron Paul Will Free The Slaves!

Are you aware of the ugly drug facts?
12 times more American drug convicts are blacks.
It’s a great plot. you see,
To destroy the black family
And feed their men off to corporate wolf packs

There they labor in prison industries
Two bucks a day is cheaper than Chinese!
Today’s opium wars
Open modern doors
To continue the elite’s slavery disease!

Ron Paul knows that his policies can save
This latest version of the American slave
That prison – industrial thugs
Lure into prison with drugs,
Then drown in a prison labor tsunami wave!
_____________________
Charles Ulysses Feney

Ron Paul destroyed the Twin Towers!
_______________________________

Charles Useless Feeble

Wow, this article was a colossal waste of time.  The author actually believes Lincoln started the Civil War to end slavery?  Wow, Tommy Christopher, you FAIL.  Abraham Lincoln’s idea for slavery was to SEND THEM ON SHIPS BACK TO AFRICA.  He did not intend to deal with them in America; do your freaking research, you hack writer.

The author of this article is pretty much evil to spin the freeing of slaves and the saving of 600,000 lives into a “slaveowner bailout”.  It’s disgusting and wrong.  I think Tommy Christopher owes Ron Paul an apology.

Tommy used the expression “slaveowner bailout” because the notion of the federal government buying 2 million slaves would likely be called such by Paul, if he were around in those days.

Obviously you attended Glenn Beck U.

Although the battle of Fort Sumter, typically considered to be the start of the Civil War, took place after Lincoln was inaugurate, 7 southern states declared from the Union while Buchanan was still President. The Civil War was really about secession and states’ rights. Slavery was a secondary factor. Surprised that Paul would advocate the Federal Government using taxpayer dollars to buy private property, which is what slaves were considered to be in those days.

Rush Limbaugh issues a “newsletter” just as Ron Paul did.  Recently, in one issue it included a rational, sane statement that was also factually correct.  Limbaugh said that he didn’t read the item and never intended that anything rational, sane or factual would ever appear in a publication with his name on it and promised it would never happen again.

Bullshit. The Civil War was about states’ rights to permit ownership of people, that is, slavery. It wasn’t about states’ right to tax produce, or local control of school boards. The Civil War was about slavery first, last and always. A lot of heroic Americans died in the course of killing treasonous scumbags with hillbilly accents.

Only after he flunked out of Liberty University, Bob Jones U., Hamburger U. and Dennis Prager U.

The plan to have the federal government “purchase” the freedom of humans would represent an obvious moral collapse. Practically speaking, not even loyal border states would concede to what was then termed “compensated emancipation”. It simply was not an option… Paul’s understanding and thinking deeply flawed on the topic.

Hey Tommy, I hear the New Black Panther Party is looking for a writer and blogger to champion the past and present issues of Black Americans. I think you’d be perfect for it especially after this article. I love how you drop knowledge on slavery like that sun! Hey, could you talk about reparations too? I feel so good knowing the truth will always be told about the plight of Blacks when we have an honest Afro American like you holding racist politicians to account right? Wrong. 

Your just another perpetual fraudster and your family tree is probably bloated with slave owners and old plantation money passed down through the generations. I wonder what pieces have you authored that discussed the impact of slavery on Black people or White people for that matter? I have not found one yet. You sir have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on the issue of slavery. Paul may be white but he is no racist. Rather, he is a well studied and honorable freedom loving white man that actually does care about Black people and all other people enough to want authentic freedom for every American. Ron Paul 2012!

if you offer your mom, tim might come back

So what would keep the slave owners from selling their slaves and then just buying new ones. Wasn’t one of the points of the war to make slavery illegal?

Perhaps you should prove yourself through actual argument on the issue. Attacking a source personally is neither logical nor productive.

Historian John Huddleston estimates the death toll at ten percent of all Northern males 20–45
years old, and 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40. It was the deadliest war in the U.S history. You want to bash Ron Paul because he suggested another way to liberate the slave without killing 2% of the population? 2% of today’s population  is 6,2 million people.

I’m sorry but you missed me with that one Ronald..

So you prefer the deaths of nearly a million soldiers rather than freeing the slaves without any bloodshed? What kind of nonsense is this?

It’s more moral to have 600,000 men killed?

Grow up.

If I told you I could free all the sex slaves in Bangkok for 3 billion, would you insist on spending 6 billion and killing 100,000 soldiers just to prove a point?

The left prefers ideology to common sense and results.  They are lead by their emotion.  Ron has made some good points that there were other ways to end slavery instead of a civil war.

Please read my comment more carefully. Respond to the content. Refrain from reference to the imagined.

Also there was Jim Crow in the USA for 100 years largely as a result of the resentment from the war… no such thing happened in the British Empire. Black people in the USA would have been better off if the USA had gone down the British route.

I suggest that those who are interested about Ron Paul’s political, social and ethical values google the John Birch Society to get a full picture of where Dr. Paul is coming from. He is currently and has been actively involved with this organization which I think exemplifies what Ron Paul and the Tea Party are all about. I’m sure we’ll all hear more about the John Birch Society over the next few days.

Hindsight is 20/20 but we’re not that smart.There wouldn’t have been a Civil,Vietnam,or Iraq war.

Anyone involved with the john birch society should not be able to be a candidate for anything.

“Bailouts” refer to the secret and non-Democratic use of taxpayer funds to save failing banks.

A more accurate and less anachronistic term would be “buyout”; had the states approved such a buyout, I doubt Ron Paul would have objected, although that’s a big “what if?” game, a game historians don’t play. It’s all academic at this point anyway.

Except a lobotomy.

Why do the “progressives” on here hate this idea? It would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Oh right, “progressives” have historically jumped at the idea of mass death and murder in order to achieve their goals. Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal comes to mind.

Anyways, The Idea proposed by Paul is no different than the plan that was implemented by the British. If we used that plane, instead  of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Americans in an unnecessary and destructive war , slavery would of ended right then and there.  

Neat story, Tommy! Really super awesome and important.

Hamburger U sounds awesome!

30 percent? Double it! Hell, triple it!

Ron Paul could suggest liberating the slaves by magic pixie fairy dust, and his suggestion would be equally worthless.  If Ron Paul becomes President, is he going to tax me to ranson kidnapped Americans?
No negotiating with terrorists.

A more cost-effective (not to mention elegant) solution would be to arm the slaves. To the teeth.

It’s Ron Paul. Don’t try to make sense of it.

600,000?

If they’re Confederates, or slave owners, it’s not only moral, it God’s work.

Ron Paul 1st in Iowa and surging in New Hampshire and Florida. Ron Paul 2012 !!!!!!

Why didn’t Ron Paul suggest Santa Claus freeing the slaves for Christmas?

Instead he suggests the socialist solution — taxing Americans to purchase human being held captive by rapists, torturers and murderers.

You owe sane people an apology.

Check out Pauls website. He raised over 4MM in 48hrs. This is a best ever record in history !!!!

If the Federal government automatically trumps everything a state decides to do we have no reason for states.  Paul, and those like him do question things which are thought of as “sacred” but all sacred means is – don’t question it.

NO, SCREW YOU, I’M GOING TO QUESTION IT!

What the hell did I just read?

Did you really just argue that it was better for the Civil War to happen than for people to be put in debt?

Maybe you didn’t know this, but that war DID cause a HUGE recession, which was part of the reason for the creation of the KKK.

FWIW – the Civil War was the bloodiest war in history, in terms of American lives lost.

Black people in the USA would’ve been better off if there hadn’t been slavery to begin with.

–Cobra

No, they would have been slaves elsewhere.  Pick up a history book.

How about reparations?  Even the Jews came out with gold and silver.  Then they made a Golden Calf which has now become the Raging Bull of Wall Street.

I want to give Paul a fair shake on this and the newsletter issue. I have only read superficially on either so far. I will follow up soon. However, in this case, if Lincoln had bought the slaves, the South would have been more than willing to sell them. Selling slaves was big business. You can be sure the South would have made a profit then the Southerners would have just bought more slaves. Buy, sell, repeat. Buy, sell, repeat. That is what a market does. Without making slavery illegal, nothing would have changed.

If anyone sees my oversight, please let me know.

The only problem with Ron Paul’s belief is that there was no political will to fund such a program from the free states and no desire to take part in one from the slave states.

Well, I imagine the buying of slaves by parties other than the state would have been made illegal. Like the article says, this did happen throughout the rest of the world without encountering your hyperbole.

The feds insisting on making slavery illegal was the basis of the secession. So you’re saying the Lincoln would not simply have bought the slaves already owned, he would have also paid the South to ban any future slavery? The price on that would seem to be impossibly exorbitant.

If you want to buy my job from me and make me (and my children) agree to never work again, you’re going to have to pay for several generations of lost income. Otherwise I’ll say no. The South would have done the same.

And what “hyperbole”? What I said was just the natural reactions of any market.

Hamburger University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University

It is shorthand. We humans do this often. Lincoln attempted to free the slaves, that caused the South to attempt to secede, that led both sides to war. If you punch yourself in the face, your nose squishes, the blood vessels pop, blood comes down your face. But to say you didn’t give you a bloody nose is bloody ridiculous.

You nitpick something for no purpose except to try to show how much more intelligent you are.

I’m not up to quantifying everything at the moment, but Lincoln could not have simply purchased all 4 million slaves and be done with it. Slave owners sold slaves all the time. He would have also had to purchase an agreement not to use more slaves.

If Ron Paul thinks this could have been done, is there some site that lists all the prices involved and makes his case? Paul is the one making the assertion here.

Tommy would rather 650,000 Americans die.  Why do you hate America Tommy?

The South started the war by firing on Union ships and bases. I think they would not have considered the Ron Paul slave-buyout plan. The burden of death falls on the Southerners, not Pres. Lincoln.

Wow, so overturning bad social and economic policy(slavery) within our own country is the same as negotiating with terrorists?

And you back that up with arm the slaves?     Let me get this straight, you are going to go into the south with guns, and walk up on someones plantation and give the people their guns, and nobody is going to notice?

Are you serious?

Unfortunately, after reading this some people are going to disqualify Ron Paul simply because he had a different approach to ending slavery.  THAT ISSUE WAS MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.  Regardless of whether his opinion on this would have worked, the issues TODAY are what matter, and Ron Paul is right on when it comes to those.

What Ron Paul is saying is not some radical idea.     It was done elsewhere, so he’s really just quoting history on other ways to deal with things.

You make it illegal in the process, so they wouldn’t have any more to buy.    I’m sure there would be some resistance to it, however if you can please the overwhelming majority of people, then you prevent an actual war, and it turns into only a few people here and there, and would not be supported by the local state governments.

The subject is really moot though, what’s been done has be done and we can only live and learn from it at this point.   I think of it as a “who knows their world history” type question, and Ron Paul does.

You aren’t properly recognizing the different scopes of things.

You don’t need a plan that every person or even state has to agree too.      All you need is a plan that pleases the overwhelming majority of people.

Which will at worse leave small pockets of resistance across the states.  In doing so, you prevent the war because you prevent the states from becoming involved, and the resistance to it will not have state support.

Even in the case that you do not flip every state, you kill the confederacy as a whole, because you do not have a large amount of states to go to war.   When those individual states are faced with such a large enemy, then they are more likely to go along, because then it becomes obvious they will lose them anyway, and pay an even higher price.

The more and more people who take them up on the offer, the more economical it becomes for the others to also go along. 

And how many you convince will largely depend on the price.     And if you are smart, then that price can lower as time goes on, because again economically the issue will be snowballing.

If the south didn’t think it had a chance to win the war, they wouldn’t have fought it.    Treating the issue as if it would be an all or nothing thing right away would be a logical fallacy.

History has already proven Ron Paul right on this issue because it was done in other countries with success.

God’s work?    This kind of ignorance turns people away from god.

Matthew 7

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

“How long does Ron Paul think it would have taken to muster the political will to fund a slaveowner bailout that only benefited people who couldn’t even vote?”

The writer has said exactly nothing. It is like saying

“How long does Ron Paul think it would take to muster the political will to cut a trillion off the budget in his first year in office?”

The point being???? This is another useless article.

From this black man’s perspective, 1.3 million would still be less than the bill due for 200 yrs. of depravity. Master sowed the wind, master reaped the whirlwind. BTW, f^ck Ru Paul and his buck toothed inbred ladyboy son.

Posted this to someone else, but I guess it applies here.

You aren’t properly recognizing the different scopes of things.

You
don’t need a plan that every person or even state has to agree
too.      All you need is a plan that pleases the overwhelming majority
of people.

Which will at worse leave small pockets of resistance
across the states.  In doing so, you prevent the war because you prevent
the states from becoming involved, and the resistance to it will not
have state support.

Even in the case that you do not flip every
state, you kill the confederacy as a whole, because you do not have a
large amount of states to go to war.   When those individual states are
faced with such a large enemy, then they are more likely to go along,
because then it becomes obvious they will lose them anyway, and pay an
even higher price.

The more and more people who take them up on the offer, the more economical it becomes for the others to also go along. 

And
how many you convince will largely depend on the price.     And if you
are smart, then that price can lower as time goes on, because again
economically the issue will be snowballing.

If the south didn’t
think it had a chance to win the war, they wouldn’t have fought it.   
Treating the issue as if it would be an all or nothing thing right away
would be a logical fallacy.

History has already proven Ron Paul right on this issue because it was done in other countries with success.

And Evan I ask you, why should reprobate,murderous, freedom hating slave owner profit from their debauchery. Since when do we negotiate with terrorist? The only problem? Merry xmas.

Additionally, you could have a program for the states to individually volunteer to do and the states could make it illegal on their own individually.     So you don’t have to do it as all or nothing.

Tea bagger, mass murder to achieve our goals? What was the result of forced slavery on the slaves, jackass. I bet a pansy like you wouldn’t have lasted two days in the fields. Karma is a bitch, and all your johnny rebels are doing blow jobs in hell. ( your ancestors included). And that’s as is should be.

If those soldiers promote slavery, rape, murder and the usual related atrocities, then yes I do.
In some ways it’s the same kind of nonsense that kicked the shit out of the Nazis in WWll.
But I suppose the Klan thinks they could have been bought off too.

Yes, I can see this principle working. If we were to be facing the same situation today, we would consider the option of basically forming trade pacts with those willing to certify they were slave free. States would have an incentive to join. It would be progressive. This is kind of how the internet works with the voluntary peering and email trust lists and such. I don’t know if it would be sufficient, in the case of slavery, though. Maybe keeping slaves would be the price of doing business for some states. Then what does a Libertarian do? C’est la vie?

The way I see this, the Constitution grants the people in America freedom,  so the federal government must use any means available to it to ensure those freedoms. Is it just your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment that, for you, precludes the federal government from his kind of action?

Related to Robert E. ? Yes I do and will bash the old cocker because it is easy to talk shit and second guess events of over a hundred and fifty years ago. I prefer to take a fatalist approach and theorize that the U.S. was guilty of a great sin, and therefor was destined to pay a great price. Just like cockroaches, the mangy dogs that plied slavery could in no way be expected to ever evolve into clean descent God fearin’ members of any worth while society. The important thing is we progressives know that they have learned their lesson, and wouldn’t dream of trying to pull such crap today. That really would be a lost cause.  Merry xmas

KR,  the Mass 22nd would later become the famed buffalo soldiers.

Liar! F^ck Ru Paul and his snagged-toothed inbred sissy boy son.

No, this kind of action is what the federal governments #1 and sole purpose should be. I do not believe the government exists to solve my problems or to control my life. It exists to protect the liberty and freedoms of the citizens, especially in the case of the states.

But it all goes back to the creation of the constitution. They could not at that time make slavery illegal. So they kind of set the tone for it in the constitution with it’s purpose, it was a matter from there of recognizing slaves as citizens in order to extend those rights. The southern states would have never joined the Union and the US would have likely fallen to the British.

So it was set for a showdown from the start. States rights actually helped the slaves leading up the war, until the Federal government started to ignore them. The Northern States had abolished slavery on their own, which in itself became a haven and safe zone for slaves who could make it to freedom(Underground railroad).

But then the federal government stepped in and started to force the Northern States to capture and return the slaves to the south, ignoring the states rights of the north. Some would argue that under the commerce clause the Federal government was right, but I personally disagree, as it was a matter of different state laws and not federal law and it infringed on the rights of the northern states to force them to return.

Another example of this line is the Civil Rights movement in the 60′s. The federal government was 100% correct when it went to the southern states and insured everyone was allowed to vote. That is it’s job, that is why it exists. Protecting the liberty of those people.

But the fed kind of stepped over the line when it came to forcing businesses to segregate or whatever. The real problem wasn’t private businesses doing it, but rather governments were forcing them previously to segregate. They should have just removed the laws forcing businesses, rather than simply changing their direction.

Personally, I’d rather they put out a sign out front announcing their ignorance to the world. I’d rather not support them financially.

Either way, it’s a right of the business in the same manner it’s your right to decide who you let in your home.

Aren’t we assuming that ALL the southerners would have wanted to give up their slaves? What if the value (labor) of having slaves (+their progeny) was more than a hypothetically (one time) monetary offer from Abe? Logically, it would have been better to just keep the slaves….which would have led to a quagmire. The 600,000 deaths was necessary.

I never thought about it like that. I really enjoy that fact that I’m challenged with new perspectives, ideas without namecalling. Dr Ron Paul is such an intellectual tour de force. 

Right…so you’re endorsing American slavery due to what?  Patriotism?

 No wonder Republicans can’t win our votes.

–Cobra

Summary of the topic here… Emancipated compensation was a no go… Even the states most likely to agree rejected it roundly.
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=35&subjectID=3

OK. And that is the problem that Paul has: He is more a philosopher than he is a politician. He is not supposed to win, but his ideas are mean’t to get air time in the political discourse. I love him for that. But then, I also love Rush Limbaugh for the same reason.

Ron Paul Liked His Newsletter in 1995. According to Daily Beast, Ron Paul’s claim that he didn’t know about the racist content of the newsletter published under his name in the 1980s and ’90s is looking shaky a day after he stormed out of an interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger. “Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years, 22 years ago?” he told Borger when asked about the newsletter. People did, and they found a 1995 C-Span interview in which he described the newsletter as a passion project after his career in Congress, a “political type of business, investment newsletter.” And in a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, he didn’t deny authorship of the racist statements but said they had to be read in context.

We don’t need to speculate. Lincoln attempted compensated emancipation. Even Deleware, with only a few thousand slaves, rejected the idea. Did no one learn about the Civil War in their coursework? It’s understandable that you might not understand the history well… But the fact that a sitting congressman knows so little about the topic yet speaks so confidently is not evidence of his intellectual strength… Only the weakness of his historical knowledge.

“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” Ron Paul, End the Fed

Even the best tool is useless to he/ she who lacks the capacity to use it.

Careful. Some of your relatives/ancestors were quite possibly “treasonous scumbags with hillbilly accents.” And no, the Civil War was not about slavery. Learned that the first day in my grad-level Civil War class. All the foul language and name calling in the world won’t change that.

I have been reading some of the most outlandish stuff about Ron Paul’s idea that the southern slave owners could have been bought off, etc. It’s doubtful whether anything could be done to prevent the carnage of the Civil War, but whatever happened, it seems as if the Civil War never ended. The South is still the most backward part of the country, the center of Tea Baggery. Most southerners were not slave owners, and like today they were used just as cannon fodder for the real slave owners who today are the Teapublicans and their backers. For the Teapublicans to win in 2012 will take immense voter fraud or a military coup. The jig is up. There’s no way Dr Paul will even be the nominee, especially as more of his background info comes to the fore. Dr. Paul was and is still active in the John Birch Society which is as loony as the rightwing gets. It’s anti everything -  Blacks, Jews, any government involvement in the general welfare of all people except, of course, the uber rich. The rightwingers are fighting a futile battle and the sooner they admit defeat, the better off all of us will be.

The political situation in our country is like a morality play. The new symbolic slave owners (Demint, O’Connell, The Pauls – father and son, the Koch Bros and all the Teapublicans are desperately trying to retain a grip on power, but their time is up. All the money in the world will not put Humpty-Dumpty together again

Wrong, wrong and did you here me wrong!  Black people in the Caribbean & Africa were still colonized, still segregated and still subject to violent retribution if they did not acquiesce. The idea that England gave up slavery over some moral revelation is also BS. There were over 900 slave rebellions in the Caribbean and England could not afford to keep the peace when the price of shipping goods dropped.

Read some history. There were bitter slave revolts & independent ex-slave or maroon settlements that lasted for decades in Brazil. There was plenty of blood shed  over slavery. Not to mention that Brazil did not give up slavery until 1884. But what are a few more decades of bondage, rape and unpaid work if white lives are saved?

So you’re saying there were no revolts in the US? You’re saying revolts equal Civil War?

I already asserted that we have the stupidest and most backwards government in the world, and that’s probably why slavery lasted as long as it did (not to mention the abundance of natural resources that may have encouraged lawmakers to delay emancipation in order to dig for gold and diamonds a bit more).

The US probably wouldn’t take too long to end slavery without the civil war.

Rewarding whites for holding human beings in bondage? How the hell is that a solution? Then even more black men women and children hung from trees. Slaveholder reparation would not have stopped due to the black codes, Jim Crow and the rise of the KKK. Paul also forgets the thousands of blacks who fought & died for their freedom. I wonder what they would have said about such a ridiculous policy? 

Read the succession ordinance. Each state that they are leaving the Union over “hostilities towards the slave owning states” 

Why is Ron Paul the champion of small government championing a government buyout?

I guess you won’t be getting an apology.

Brazil…White lives, saved?

Is that what you got out of that remark?

I’m a conservative that has never voted for a Democrat since I first voted for Richard Nixon; but I’d seriously consider voting for President Obama before I’d vote for Ron Paul. At least Barack Obama is willing to kill terrorists. God only knows what Ron Paul would do to our enemies except talk them nautious. Barack Obama might be destroying America, but Ron Paul would do it at light speed. http://ewross.com

An abolishment of slavery would have clearly been part of that hypothetical bargain.

That’s to those asinine enough to postulate the slavery would be allowed to continue.

So killing them and nearly destroying the country is the solution? Brittan bought all their slaves from the slave owners and freed them. Nobody died and their nation wasn’t nearly destroyed by internal struggle.

For the blacks who fought and died for their freedom, I think they would of said it would of been much more preferable to be freed and not die.

Yes, “progressives” have historically used mass murder to achieve their goals. Hitler, Stalin, Teddy Roosevelt to name a few, all “progressives”, all have the blood of thousands to millions on their hands. They used the power of government to enforce their definition of “social change”. “Social change”, does that sound familiar btw?
Hitler killed millions of Jews and other “undesirables” because they didn’t fit into his vision of a utopian socialist society. Stalin killed millions of his fellow Russians because in his mind they posed a threat to the state. To him, killing off a few million individuals to ensure the survival of the collective is well worth it. You being a “progressive” and therefore a collectivist I’m sure you can relate. The “progressive” Roosevelt sacrificed thousands of workers, both American and Panamanian,  to see his vision, his pet project, the construction of the Panama Canal a reality. He could of waited for the scientists to find the cure for Malaria and Yellow Fever. But no, he was stubborn and he wanted it completed on time. Lives of thousands be damned.
 In the eyes of a “progressive”, what does the deaths of a few thousand or million men, women and children mean in the name of progress? According to history, absolutely nothing.

No slaves were used to dig for gold here in the US – ever. No one knew about any diamond deposits in North America until the 20th century, more than 100 years after the Civil War.

It’s not the government that is stupid and backward – it’s you, Daniel.

Yes, the states of the Confederacy were in revolt and that is the Civil War. Where did you get the idea that it was any different?

No need for an answer from you – I can imagine what a doozy you will come up with.

Your man Ron just keeps on providing tons of entertainment, and more evidence he is a crackpot and can’t get elected.

Still crazy after all these years…

He’s no Republican and should not even be involved in the primaries. All he will accomplish is watering down the GOP so Obie can win again because of folks who just can’t get behind Ron because of the many foolish statements he has made over the years.

Wonder why the liberals aren’t going after him like wild dogs in the manner in which they have every other Republican candidate so far? Because he is not a threat, and he is the one candidate they know they will have no problem defeating.

Do you want a cookie for that? Sorry, there are no rewards for inanity.

So what? You can’t undo the injustices of history. At some point all this guilt trip junk has to end – at least for rational people.

Historically speaking, the slave states were almost exclusively Democrat. Look it up.

Nut, I think your white guilt has gotten the better of you.

Unfortunately for you, The US and CS were not totalitarian communist dictatorships. Not only is your suggestion the product of madness, but just how were you going to implement that in the first place?

Obviously you haven’t thought this through.

You are totally and absolutely insane, which makes you a good little Paulbot.

Having fun,Dood?

Not to mention that the war was actually started by the Confederacy fielding an army and declaring war on the United States.

History shows Lincoln wanted anything but war, but it was thrust upon him, and he did the best anyone could have under the circumstances. Slavery was merely a hinge pin in the actual reasons for the war, and it had been brewing a long time before the first shots were fired.

Actually there was no warfare before the South declared war on the North. Lincoln was in favor of abolition of slavery IN THE NORTH, and did not want to force the issue in the South. The Emancipation Proclamation was not made until January 1, 1863 – three years of bloodshed had taken place before this. The real reason for the war was not because of slavery, it was because the South did not want to be dictated to by the Federals. This is a common misunderstanding, but in reality slavery was peripheral to the reason the war broke out in the first place.

You sir, are an magnum caliber idiot. Kellia Ramares is correct, and if you did some research that would be borne out by what you would find.

Proceed on in your ignorance – especially that part about your obvious hatred of American southerners. There are plenty like you, and you all amount to one entire idiot.

“hostilities towards the slave owning states” does not equal hostilities to free the slaves no matter what your education says. The real reason was secession from the Union. It was an armed insurrection that started it, and the end of slavery was a by product of the war.

Sorry, but on this you are not correct.

Nutz, are you John Brown reincarnated? He murdered a lot of innocent people in his campaign to drive the country into civil war over abolition. The comments you leave here leave little to the imagination.

Yep. Nothing I like better than pointing out how useless and pointless speculations about how events in history could have changed things by these ifs, ands, and buts.

I don’t think the clueless should be allowed access to computers, but then I like to read science fiction – just not about real events and people.

Magnum caliber idiot! Brilliant!!!!!!

Hahaha. with people like Sharton,Jackson fueling the :”you owe me for reparation from a hundred years ago crowd,it may be an uphill battle.

It’s kinda like whack a mole…

Well have at it dood,I’m just watching the show. I’m so tired,all I can do is watch

It’s all about fermentation of hate, the longer it is kept under pressure the bigger the explosion. To me, it seems like they don’t want to get on with life, which just continues the hate and doesn’t solve anything.

My ancestors were almost wiped out by the whites of the 1800′s, but only a few still harbor resentments because doing that holds you back and keeps you less than at your potential.

Personally I think it is a waste of time, energy and talent.

That’s it in a nut shell…hell I’m Sioux/Cherokee-and we moved on-it was that or be kept under the mans boot…we chose to make our own way.

History has actually proved Rep Paul incorrect. According to wikipedia (google compensated emancipation wiki), Lincoln did try to buy the slaves and even enacted it for Washington DC where slaveowners were compensated. He tried to do this federally but the South rebelled instead. They didn’t want to sell their slaves, they wanted to keep them. Rep Paul is neither a good student of history or of human nature.

I think this is what the soros,BHO,SEIU want though,they want the boiling over to happen next summmer.

You apparently didn’t properly read your own link. He tried to free them by saying the slaves would still have to stay and work X amount of time.

Of which btw, basically happened anyway as the slave didn’t really have anywhere else to go.

He’s the only true conservative on the stage, and the liberal media is constantly going after him.

You sound like one of those people who thinks neocons aren’t liberals.

The Constitution does not grant people freedom. People are born free, you have your freedom because you are a being with free will.

The Constitution is in modern times often viewed as a document of limited rights. Those which are specifically listed. In this manner, people believe the Constitution “Grants” them their rights.

However, this is not true. The Constitution is not a document of limited rights, it’s a document of limited government. The Constitution is the agreement between the free people of this country, and the government of the country in what it’s duties are.

So the rights it lists isn’t the Constitution granting the rights to those people, it’s listing a specific job for the government to carry out. So the 1st amendment isn’t just something the government “can’t do”, it’s something they are supposed to actively make sure no government infringes on.

So take the civil rights movement(outside the part of telling private businesses what to do), it was the job of the federal government to step in.

Because that is the real role of the federal government, to protect the freedoms and liberties of the citizens.

Anything that is not specifically listed is not something the federal government has permission to do. This is your 10th amendment right, which is part of the bill of rights.

Of course, you can add jobs for the federal government with amendments to the constitution. This requires the states to ratify them, and 3/4 majority vote. Not easy, but it insures the 51% doesn’t rule over the 49% like we have now.

So no, the 10th amendment doesn’t take away the federal governments ability to protect the rights of citizens. The 10th amendment was added as a lock on the federal government, to try and keep congress from doing things not listed in the constitution. Because it says anything not listed is passed down. There was much debate over the bill of rights, some people didn’t want to list the rights for fear that we would someday be reduced to them(we have), and others who wanted to list the most basic rights to ensure they were never taken(has helped for sure). The 9th and 10th amendments were the compromise as a way of listing the rights, but not being limited to only those rights.

The best action of that time starts within the hearts of the people. You have to convince the people it’s wrong and they need a change of heart. From there it is a matter of recognizing them as full citizens.

I’m not upset at Lincoln or anything, glad the slaves were free. But I do think it was possible to handle the situation better. But hindsight is 20/20 of course, and what’s happened has happened. No reason we can’t learn and admit that other alternatives were possible. I am sure that this notion that the US never does wrong things is not healthy for the country.

But what you need are states taking up the majority of domestic issues. Then the federal government should only be the entity that makes sure the states and local governments aren’t infringing on the rights of the people. When the federal government is doing it, we have no checks. That is why I defend the 10th amendment.

Having things on state and local levels also gives the power to the people. Vote more often, your vote makes a higher % and it’s easier to get change. Multiple programs and states competing with each other to provide the best solutions also always the most progress because the states can institute the working policies of other states. While a state that does bad things, only that state suffers for them, not the entire country like now, and they will have working states to look at in order to fix them.

When we were that type of a system, we were #1 in the world in education and healthcare.

What we have today is the limited rights document, of which we are constantly losing. And a complete shift from a government that protects the freedoms and liberties to a government that controls and runs our lives, while we serve it.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly understands freedom and liberty, and that is why I support him.

Sorry for rambling. It’s a long discussion, I can go on, but I’ll take a break here.

I’m Brazilian. I was talking about Brazil.

Ron Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian. The liberal media only goes after him because you folks have managed to make him the flavor of the week – the next person up will get the same treatment because that’s what the liberal lie machine does.

You said it, neocons aren’t liberals. That is a liberal term for anyone right of center.

Paul is not a Republican and is bad for the party – he should run as a libertarian and stop with the nonsense of posing as a Republican.

I agree. The Occupy business was a lab for what is coming from the left. This will get ugly before it gets better.
Hell, it ain’t that good lookin’ to start with!

If you took the time to read this, they were talking about the United States. Sorry, I mistook you for an american liberal.

Merry Christmas

I agree. A test run,and they don’t even realize they’re being used. A sad day in America….this is why I talk to students…it seems to work here.

The problem is you have alot of out- of- towners who infiltrate the cliche’,and naturally being kids,an from supposed hicksville-they look up to these liberals in college who come from say Kalifornia.

Generally as a rule around here family sticks together…they may stray,but not for the long haul.

you said it for me.  thanks.  as a PS, anyone who has read anything about Sherman’s March through Georgia , knows that while it visited a terrible price on the white occupants , slave in Georgia suffered as well .  many of them tried to follow Sherman and died in the attempt from hunger and exhaustion and trying to follow the Army through rough terrain.  Others who stayed on their plantations died from collateral damage due to the economic devastation caused by the March.  

Congress banned the slave trade on January 1, 1808, as soon as constitutionally allowed.

Congress banned the slave trade on January 1, 1808, as soon as constitutionally allowed.  If the Federal government had gone forward with a plan to purchase slaves and set them free, they could not have been replaced.  (by slave trade, I am referring to the importing of human slaves from OUTSIDE  the US.)   therefore there would have been no source of new slaves as replacements for the previously purchased ones.   Also , even if all of the slave owners did not accept an offer to sell their slaves , such a plan would have had a devastating effect on the remaining slave work force.  even in 1860, news that some slaves were purchased an set free by the Federal Government would have spread like wildfire among the remaining slaves in the south resulting in a massive work slowdown, strike or outright revolt.

everyone would be better off today if there had never been evil in the world.

Actually the cost of the CW was closer to $12-!3 billion when all of indirect costs are figured in , including the costs of all the pensions paid by the federal gov’t and the state governments.  The plan suggested by Lincoln , which was not successful , was $400 per slave.  assuming 4,000,000 slaves , the total cost would have been $1,600,000,000 , much less than the final cost and without the loss of life and economic destruction.  Naturally this plan was rejected because prior to the start of a war , no one ever thinks of the final cost.  Best current examples : Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam .

This is actually a reply to your reply but the website wouldn’t let me do that so i’m doing it here. The essential mistake I think you and Rep Paul are making is thinking that the Civil War was about states’ rights. It wasn’t; it was about slavery. I’ll prove it to you with a simple example. Who won the Civil War and what were the results? The North won. Now if states’ rights were really the issue, we wouldn’t have states’ rights today. But we do. Homosexuals can get married in Vermont but not in Texas. Vermont has that right. But if slavery was really the issue, we wouldn’t have slavery today. And we don’t.
As to your assertion that Lincoln didn’t want to pay slaveowners to give up slavery, isn’t that completely belied by the fact that slaveowners in Washington DC were paid $300 per slave to emancipate them? Lincoln tried what Rep Paul suggested but it still led to Civil War. So I stand by my assertion on Rep Paul as a poor student of history. Your assertion that slaves were still going to have to work x amount of time is false in that that was an alternate solution to compensated emancipation. That wasn’t the solution that Lincoln tried in Washington DC. i really don’t know why you even brought it up unless you were confused as to what Lincoln was suggesting. But to close my case let me quote Lincoln: “The blacks must be freed. Slavery is the bone we are fighting over. It must be got out of the way to give us permanent peace, and if we have to fight this war till the South is subjugated, then I think we shall be justified in freeing the slaves without compensation. But in any settlement arrived at before they force things to that extremity, is it not right and fair that we should make payment for the slaves?” Quoted from the Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln. I didn’t look up the original source but am willing to stake that it’s correct.

I was using Brazil as an example of a country that has always been a hundred times worse than the US and that nonetheless didn’t need a Civil War to abolish slavery.

I understand. No nation needs a civil war, especially now with the firepower available. What you are missing is that the US Civil War was not intended to abolish slavery, it was to bring the secessionist states back into the Union, and the abolition of slavery wasn’t the main thrust of the war. That war is misunderstood by lots of people, but it centered around states not wanting to be forced to accept conditions from the federal government, only one of which was concerning slavery.

It was a response to rebellion under arms by the Confederate States of America, and the dissolution of slavery was a by-product of that war, not the main reason for it.

Fortunately for us, the population of fly-over country outnumbers the urban centers on both coasts, where the liberals have their power concentrated. This is why Glenn said we surround them – they still don’t get it.

I keep having these conversations with these idiots,and they haven’t a clue about what the 95% of America consists of…We do outthink,and out number these A-holes.

Correct.

Our job is to mobilize and show them with the ballots. I am ready.

God Bless and Merry Christmas!

I don’t think it was about states right, or slavery completely.    I’m sure different people have different reasons.    But that doesn’t really matter in this discussion, because the article is about ending slavery either way.

I didn’t bring up the emancipation thing, someone else did.   I just outlined what the plan they brought up actually said.   You can look it up yourself.

Lincoln also said if he could save the union without outlawing slavery he would do so.    However, even beyond that quote it was clear that Lincoln was against slavery itself, but it wasn’t his prime motive.

Yes, I agree completely. That’s what I’m saying: Ron is right!

You don’t really understand this country, or the history of it, or the fact that Ron will never be elected president because of the record of his own words over many years of interviews, and his own newsletter.

Maybe you should take a look at his own statements before jumping on the Paulbot train. His isolationist remarks are not congruent with a modern world and he has made quite a few just plain crazy statements as well. It is all in the archive of his newsletters, unless the campaign has purged or edited them.

Conservatism and Libertarian is basically the exact same thing at the federal level. The difference between them is on the state and local levels. Where as the conservative would generally be in more state power than a libertarian.

Neo-cons came from the democrat party – that is a fact. Why do you think they have the word “neo” in front of conservatives? Because they aren’t conservatives.

If Ron Paul ran as a libertarian, the Republican party would be finished. The only new(aka young) people coming to the party are Ron Paul supporters.

But I hope you get your wish if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination.

PS: Ron Paul is rated as the most conservative member of Congress since the 1930′s.

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul…

You guys are a broken record. If I never hear another Ron Paul supporter blindly singing his praises without seeing the whacked out stuff he’s said over the years, it will be too soon.

The kind of loyalty and fanaticism from young people to a man in his sixties whose impractical approaches to our country existing in modern times is amazing. It’s amazing that you all can’t understand that Ron Paul is a rerun of Ross Perot.

Man hates people who have opinions that aren’t like his.  More news @ 11.

I said it here first.

More witless repartee from the Paulbot community after this commercial break from our fine sponsors…

More like an intellectual tour de france.

So are you saying Ron Paul is a tool?
(had to ask…)

4 millimeters in 48 hours – not exactly nosebleed altitude or breakneck speed…

Ron isn’t that old, he is 62. He’s no where near 2012.

Thank you!

By the way, I never said I hated you. You don’t mean enough to me for that, and hate is overused nowdays. I just don’t care for you and the other Paulbots incessant droning on, and that’s the crux of it.

Everytime someone dares to show you the true Ron Paul, you recoil in horror and pounce on that person with the rabid fanaticism of a religious zealot.

Actually, Lincoln thought about this but at about $1,000 to $2,000 a slave the cost of purchasing 4 million slaves would have been around $4-8Billion; this was a tremendous expense at the time and there was no source for such amounts of money for the Federal Government.  Lincoln also considered repatriation or what was widely referred to then as colonization. But this to would have also been prohibitively costly.

What Paul is ignoring is that Lincoln wasn’t against slavery, he was against the expansion of slavery.  Lincoln had now problem with slavery where it existed when he was first elected president. IN his first inaugural he reiterated his campaign stand;

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have
no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
 
He just wanted to stop the spread of slavery.  In his first inaugural Lincoln also included these lines from the Constitution; since amended:

“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation
therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered
up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who
made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the
intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear
their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to
any other.”

During the Civil War Lincoln continuously rethought his position from partial abolition of slavery in the Rebellious states to full abolition by the time he was finally assassinated.  This is why it is extremely dangerous to make statements such as that made by Jonathan Robertson.  At one point Lincoln considered this possibility since it was a widely held belief, such that there was actually a “Colonization  Society” who worked to bring this idea to fruition and collected money to do so, but they could never generate the funds needed to send more than a small number of slaves back to what is now modern day Liberia–named for the liberty of the freed slaves.  Later, some Black Nationalists such as Marcus Garvey would also preach this repatriation gospel. 
 

Because it is cheaper and saves more lives than war.

That’s ridiculous considering the price of the war and the effects of the war itself were way more costly to the American people.

It’s called giving a crap about what is going on around you.

As for showing the “true Ron Paul”, that’s simply ridiculous. You are simply one of those idiots that thinks you are blaming America if you point out bad policy.

You are one of those idiots that thinks you are weak on defense if you don’t want to blow up every other country in the world.

And so on.

It’s one thing to bitch about policy, and quite another to do something about it. When you personally have done something substantial then you can say you have accomplished what all of America, all the good politicians and officials throughout recorded history have failed to do. There are many people like you who armchair quarterback the government, yet few of you actually participate.

You know nothing about what I think and apparently not much other than what you parrot from the Ron Paul fan-club. I served in the Army during the Vietnam war, as an enlistee and not a draftee, so I think I did a lot more than you have to defend this country, its people and The Constitution.

I care about what goes on – but a man has to know his limitations, and you apparently don’t because you have never done anything but tappity-tap on your keyboard about it.

“armchair quarterback”?

It’s called being a “voter”.   You know, “We the People” and all that.

And btw, every male in my family with the exception of my youngest brother has served in the military.     And none of us would EVER in a million years try to use that service for tribute or credibility.   Maybe a little wink and smile for the lady’s, but give me a freaking break already.

The moment you thought you had a right to demand respect was the moment you lost it.

I demanded nothing from you, and your disrespect is the suit you led with. I responded to your remarks about Vietnam because you are loaded with popular faction, but not too acquainted with what went on there, on the ground. I am a veteran and proud of my service, and for many years I said nothing about it, but there comes a time when you get tired of the accusations and ignorance of people, especially those who are hypercritical and spit on your brothers. If you ever served you would be able to understand that.

Being a voter is a contribution, but don’t be critical of those who have risked their lives so you could do it.

This discussion is about slavery, which surely did end.

But we still have the same constitution, and the same kinds of general issues.    So of course some things are going to remain.

It’s funny, people don’t seem to realize that the 10th amendment is part of the bill of rights.   Much less what it’s purpose is.

I’m not voting for any candidate who has supported the erosion of our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendments either.    Does this mean I am still fighting the revolutionary war?

“Lincoln attempted compensated emancipation.”

After the civil war had started already.   The southern states succeeded before Lincoln was even sworn in.   The war itself started almost immediately after as Lincoln started to supply bases in the south, ignoring the rights of the states to succeed.

Delaware was one of four states who stayed in the union who still had legalized slavery.

And did you not read the reasons why those states did not do it?    Such as the fact that the war was already going and that it was not going to make the war end any faster.   That because they were in war, such an expense would be unjustified?

It wasn’t done as a way of preventing war, it was done with the pitch line that it would make the war end faster.

I mean honestly, Lincoln inherited alot of problems and things were in motion long before he took the job.   There is no question of that.   And in the end, he did keep the Union together, and slavery was ended which are both great. Its too bad he was killed over greenbacks, which was the most awesome thing he ever did.   But lets put things in their proper context.

No, as I posted previously, the fact that you are assuming this is wrong

In order to prevent the war itself, all you need to do is to get enough support that the majority go for it.

So, then you have within a state, some people who go for it and sell.    Others will resist, but if you an keep the state itself from being unified against it, then you have prevented the war.   You will just have small pockets of resistance to take care of with that state.

And in the case of states that are unified, it’s a numbers game again.    3 or 4 states aren’t going to succeed on their own against all the others.   And thus you prevent a war.

If you can prevent an out right war, then you can move things via political pressure.   Nobody starts a war they know they can’t win.

But you do have to make it worth while for sure.   It’s like when you sell a business.   You don’t look at the “one time” offer in relation to selling, you will want an offer that covers a good distance of money earned.    I’m not going to sell my company based for a price that covers what I would make in 1 month for example.

And you do have to get a starting point established.   By the time Lincoln was in office, that time was really long past.

I didn’t make any remarks about Vietnam. I did serve, and I have no idea where I have ever been critical of “your brothers”.

Go take your meds. Oh, and quit following me.

I will follow you as long as I like and there is nothing you can do about it, so get used to it mister paranoid.

I hope you learn something from following me.

And yes, you did say I didn’t. You said if I had blah blah blah.

And lol about the women part. It’s not “using it to pick up woman”, but rather that woman have a thing for military men.

You’re too funny.

Btw, calling me paranoid is laughable, when you apparently feel threatened enough to follow me.

Just like you are paranoid everyone else in the world is out to get you. lol.

You are paranoid, that is why you objected to me following you in Disqus. Do you know what that means? I doubt you do.

I don’t think anyone is out to get me personally, but your infantile assumptions of how the world works in reality are to say the least completely ignorant.

And you are truly sad.

You do realize that there is a difference between what I wrote and what you put in quotation marks don’t you?

I wrote : to pick up women
You wrote : “to pick up woman…”, and, “woman have a thing…” which compounds the error.

You need to work on writing skills, things like this trash your credibility.

Yes, it’s just that I’m paranoid and has nothing to do with the fact that maybe I just don’t want to be associated with you in any way.

You can click on my name and see all the posts I make. And I post them publicly, so it’s not like I’m trying to hide them. The only difference is, now your profile shows up in my list as if you are a friend, and you are not.

Oh no, a typo. The world is going to end.

Get real.

You’re not my friend either,but I folow what you post,keeping ahead of the curve,so to speak.

Dood,do I even want to know what this conversation is even about?! LMAO

You lie like a rug ,women are only attracted to Honorable men-unlike yourself.

yep,I’m with you.Merry Christmas.

I’m not sure if I should address how you would pretend to judge my honor, or if I should address how sadly untrue that is of women.

Either way, I must admit I am somewhat surprised that I am being attacked for mentioning that women like a man in uniform.

Well, I don’t follow anyone so I can’t say I really understand why.

I guess I would be more likely to follow a topic than a person.

good news for me then. :)

I don’t know why he comes back – must enjoy the beatings.

Not a typo – an error because you normally write that way – wrong.

Boo flipping hoo.

The implied connotations in that statement,may be apt in this case,Dood.
please carry on and provide the entertainment. Smiles

I consider it a public service.

That was the investment newsletter years before Lew Rockwell made those offensive comments in the other newsletters, including the survivalist on. The 1980s (not 1990s as you’ve written) interview has Ron Paul level describing IN ONE SENTENCE that his newsletter is about hard money (gold and commodity money). Please try to get the facts straight.

Lincoln was terribly wrong.  The fact that he is revered in this country is beyond me.  

About the only thing that I agree with was his use of greenbacks as currency, but even that cause was only to fund war without debt.  

600,000 people died.  Countless were wounded, dismembered, and had their lives altered forever.    Slavery had run its course in America and likely would have been gone in a decade on its own.  

It was an excuse, not a reason.  The true reason was to exert the overt brand of federalism that still exists today toward what were considered rogue states.