Ron Paul: Still Insane

Did you know that the Civil War could have been avoided if the North had bought all of the South’s slaves?  Ron Paul thinks so.  Why does this man get invited to conservative conferences, again?

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Still Insane

  1. Its called thinking outside of the box Calvin. Not something a man with a sheep’s brain like you would understand.

  2. I would love to have an actual debate with you. You seem to debate just as awkwardly if not as vehemently as the people you make fun of. Your facts are never shown and you don’t engage in actual debatable topics. You choose to say “people don’t know history” but, you don’t follow up with your own knowledge base. I challenge you to debate actual topics, I have a masters in history and a b.a. in anthropology. I enjoy your convictions but where is the substance? How is lincoln the one of the best presidents? Why didn’t he follow up with civil rights legislation? How is having no job oportunities, no civil rights, no voting rights, no ability to have money not still slavery? It is very debatable the slavery issue was used by the North to gather moral support for a terrible war. It is also debatable slavery could have been abolished many different ways as every other European country had.

    • There are many examples on my blog and on NewsReal showing that I’m fully capable of substantive debate. But while I’d love to spend all day exploring every aspect of every issue, I have a life outside of blogging that forces me to pick some battles to focus on and simply pass along stories of interest as I find them in others. The Civil War fascinates me, so I’ll surely be returning to it in more detail in the future, but I’m not going to apologize for not writing extended dissertations on everything I write about.

      Further, I have learned that, more often than not, engaging Ron Paul supporters in direct conversation is a tremendous waste of time, as they tend to be extremely dishonest, dogmatic, ignorant, and just plain annoying.

  3. Nice political like answer. I too have a life and am in the process of getting a phd and working full time. I confess my job allows me some free time at my computer. I don’t support any one politician or philosophy. I think Paul’s supporters can be a little simplistic when it comes to historical understanding, however, Paul is right that republicans until Richard Nixon ( with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt) were non-interventionalists. It is also true that many racist Southern Deomocrats switched parties after LBJ to help form the new (neo)republican party (like Strom Thurman). Nixon used “states rights” as a code publicly but, his insiders knew what he meant. The party after him is just a continuation of his ideaology and never reversed or was very different from anything FDR did. HWB was the closest thing to a conservative president we have had in many years and its still a far cry from what the parties definition is. The government that governs least governs best.

  4. “Did you know that the Civil War could have been avoided if the North had bought all of the South’s slaves? Ron Paul thinks so.”

    Even a person with a 2nd grade reading level can tell you that’s not what he said. For starters, I thought most people knew that the Civil War had much bigger issues than slavery. Paul even elaborates by saying “the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that’s what it did.” Paul has claimed in numerous interviews that that’s how a country (and many did) could end slavery, but not that it would have avoided our Civil War. Only a neoconservative could look at a man that expanded the state, suspended civil liberties, set fire to the Constitution, and proudly proclaim him one of the greatest presidents of all time. I wish neocons would just openly admit already that they really are leftists.

    “Why does this man get invited to conservative conferences, again?”

    Because he wins them all.

    • “Even a person with a 2nd grade reading level can tell you that’s not what he said.”

      PAUL: “I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them.”

      “I wish neocons would just openly admit already that they really are leftists.”

      This comment proves you’re either a moron or a liar.

    • My record is more than long enough to prove that I don’t simply “resort to name-calling when backed into a corner.” But I also believe in being honest, and civil discourse does not mean that I have to indulge or coddle every self-evident lie, such as “‘neo-cons’ are leftists,” that is hurled at me.

      I did not publish your previous comment on this thread because it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. I am more than happy to engage you in discussion if you have something to say about the topics I write about, including Obama’s eligibility, but again, if you just need someplace to affirm or feed your obsession with that particular topic, please look elsewhere. This is your last warning.

  5. Read “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” by Thomas DiLorenzo and then ask yourself if Ron Paul (our next president, if this country is to be saved) is “still insane.” Seems you’re just misinformed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s