Nice smear article. It's not working. Freedom and the Constitution are taking back this country in 2012. r3VOLution 2012!

So you start with the fact that Dr.Paul is against the aspects of the Civil Rights Act that infringe on personal property rights and twist that into support for Jim Crowe laws and support for the Confederate constitution, what a joke. What Ron Paul understands that you quite obviously don't is that you cannot legislate morality and every time it is attempted it makes matters worse. The war on drugs is a perfect example of the disastrous results that occurs when the Government tries. The marketplace of ideas is where real solutions are created not the laws made up by government fiat in the midst of the inevitable changes created by those ideas. People of your ilk have absolutely no faith in mankind and have deemed that you must impose your superior will on those lesser than you using Government coercion and intervention as the shield of a coward vs taking real personal responsibility by inducing real interpersonal change. This view that others cannot be trusted and must be controlled by government is nothing more or less than projection of your own views and has nothing to do with anyone else. The problem with that entire line of reasoning is legislation drives moral problems underground to fester in resentment and marginalization making it worse than before while everyone pretends government solved the problem by fiat. Dream on.

You evil, lying, twisted f#%*s! You simply LIE about what Dr. Paul said in the video. Some of the PARTIAL quotes that you attribute to him were PARTIAL qoutes that he read from other people. You LIE when you imply that he said that slaves should have bought their freedom. He was referring to ways that other COUNTRIES, not the slaves in them, ended slavery. Indeed, Dr. Paul is correct: the UNcivil war was NOT fought to bring about an end to slavery, but to bring the states that had seceded back into the Union. And you LIE when you refer to the flag behind him as a "Confederate battle flag." It was a flag of the Confederacy. It is no more a "battle flag" than the Stars and Bars of the North was. And there are more instances of your LYING throughout your argument, as well.

Price just went up to $6. Nobody who has already posted gets to reply without paying. That's how we roll here at World War 4 Report, a wholly owned private enterprise of the World War 4 Report Family of Websites.

In the GOP caucuses Ron Paul stood out from his rivals by calling on America to stop interfering in other countries. That's the message I respond to. Maybe Ron Paul is no saint. Maybe he is flawed. Maybe he doesn't like Mexicans as you suggest. I don't care. I just want American troops out of all these foreign countries.

Why is the history of the Civil War not open to debate? That is a totalitarian attitude. The Civil War cost at least 600,000 lives. The US government committed war crimes (like Sherman's march). Constitutional rights and the constitutional system were thrown out the window. And in the Civil War certainly didn't solve the country's racial problems as much as it reinforced them for more than century. Meanwhile the rest of world peacefully ended slavery and they don't have the racial problems we still have to this day. Also, a comment about this NewsOne web site. This is a black-only web site. All the columnists for the web site are black. The slogan of the web site explicitly states it is only "for black America". This is racist on its face, but it is socially tolerated whereas a white equivalent would not be.

Only part of the flag appears. Why is that? The state flag of Georgia used to include the confederate colors, so without a full view of the flag, one cannot really know.

Maybe for the same reason the facts are "cropped?"

Paul's point is that 600,000+ did not have to die to end slavery. The Ottoman Empire abolished slavery before the first shot of our civil war was fired. The British Empire also. We are the only country that fought a war over it. Others bought the freedom of their slaves and set them free. What was so radical about that?

Paul had reasons for opposing *parts of* the Civil Rights act.

Honestly, is this all you got? I want to hear some SERIOUS dirt on the man! I want to hear him ranting against blacks and advocating killing of mexicans! I want to hear PROOF that the man is crazy. Not him speaking about ways the civil war could have been avoided.

If you can't supply that I don't see any reason to come here any more. UP YOUR GAME!

The slavery question, is no longer a question it's OVER!!! There are no slaves in the US and NO ONE plans on reversing that. There is however STILL Federal Government intrusions on States rights, and personal freedoms in which the South was right and still is. It has NOTHING to do with race. I don't care who you are, the color of your skin, or the place you worship, You should fear Big Brother and what Washington is doing to this country more than your Bigots real or imagined. Yes they do exist granted but not ALL confederates are bigots, not a majority,not even a LOT. MOST believe in Constitutional Government and what you call revisionist, we call relative, relevant, and unsolved.

So if the Civil War was fought to end slavery, why does the Emancipation Proclamation guarantee the southern states their right to own slaves if they would rejoin the union?

Actually, the North started the war. By the act of secession, the South became a sovereign nation. The North refused to give up on Fort Sumter, which constituted an act of aggression, and thus an act of war.

Defending one's country isn't an act of war because there has to be a foreign aggression into your land to begin with.

See how that works? Cause and effect?

Yeah.

The author is trolling for Ron Paul supporters to boost his rankings.

I love when authors live on their computer to refute any criticism of their articles. Using derogatory language (suckers) over and over again show that you occupy the intellectual low-ground. Did you bother to watch the hearing with DiLorenzen? The man may have some abhorrent views but he was called to testify on jobs and the economy. On this topic he was impeccable. The Keyensians present at the hearing may not have been racists, but their theories on the economy do not hold water, especially when put up against the logic of DiLorenzen. This world would be a much better place if we could all listen, objectively, to those with whom we may not agree or even like. This happens with Paul: "he doesnt hate muslims enough" so his foreign policy is "kooky". Well look at our own CIA's analysis, Michael Scheurer among others speaks the truth. Our foreign policy should not be dictated by bought congressmen and bought bobbleheads on the TV. We should listen to our military and intelligence who spend lots of money looking into things and should not be dismissed because their conclusions dont make us feel warm and fuzzy.

Paul is a racist. His supporters are automatically idiots. Look, civil rights wont matter when we have all been stripped of all rights. All but the political elite that is. This is what Paul has spent 40+ years fighting for. Rights for ALL. You may not "lie" in this excerpt, but to lump Paul in with Jim Crow advocates is ignorant at best. He opposed the Civil Rights act for the same reason that he OPPOSED Jim Crow laws. They infringe on property rights. You know what rights are? I guess us free-marketeers are the only ones that care about individual rights but if you would take the time to pull your head out of the sand and trade your insults for reason, I hope that you would realize that the rights Paul espouses are extended to EVERYBODY regardless of race, gender, religion, age, etc. Why say "black people deserve special rights" when you can say "ALL people deserve the SAME rights regardless of race". I know, I know, Im a "sucker". But instead of insulting me, how about defend your position. How can advocating EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL be racist? I will listen to your justification with an open mind, as you should.

Fellow Paulistas! Please dont give this hack any of your money. This seems like a transparent way to inflame Paul supporters (knowing how passionate we are) then bait them into paying him money to derail his circular logic. I doubt he even sincerely believes this tripe, he just wants our "five dollars". Get a real job, oh wait, you probably collect unemployment and/or welfare. "Obamaaaaa, gimme more stuff Obammmmaaaaa. You prooooomised"

I challenge you to publish even the comments that are difficult for you to rebutt or that make you look bad. There isnt anything inappropriate or inflammatory in my comments, please be man enough to respond. I am looking forward to your rationale.

The south was right. Anyone who has studied history in college knows it. Lincoln was an imperialist. The civil war was completely unnecessary. Even though the states had seceded from the nation, they would have eventually rejoined consensually. Wars are really a competition of ideas, and this idea of imperialism came in and slaughtered 625,000 Americans. Now the federal government has so much power, they have literally stolen all of our wealth to the tune of about $50,000 per person. The moment you're born as a citizen, you have this debt.

You might want to re-think your use of the epithet "Paul-sucker." It appears to be a back-formation from "cocksucker," and the use of it as pejorative reinforces the notion that a cocksucker is a bad thing to be, an idea that is fueled by homophobia and misogyny. I may be misunderstanding the derivation of the term, but "Paul-sucker" isn't particularly clever, either, so maybe it's worth your while to come up with a better insult for the commenters posting pro-Paul messages. Consider this a request from an out-and-proud dicklicker,

The flag is a pre-2001 Georgia flag. The statements made were in regard to the states right to succeed from the Union. Also, Paul states that he agreed with the abolitionist. Since I understand your not keen on American history if you can't differentiate a confederate flag from a Georgia flag then I better define abolitionism for you. Abolitionism was a movement to end slavery.

I believe the message Paul is trying to deliver in this video is one of unneccessary wars. True, he is preaching to people who are likely racist and have a political opinion totally separate from
Paul's. I think Paul is trying to plant the seed of non-interventionism in these people's minds by invoking subject matter they feel strongly about.

In Iraq, the official reason for invasion was weapons of mass destruction. At the end of the war, the official reason was liberation of the Iraqi people. In either case, alternate rationale was used to justify actions which were tied to business interests instigating warfare.

The Civil War did result in the end of legal slavery. Slavery is a terrible institutiton which no liberty-minded individual could defend. In this video, Paul makes the case that perhaps slavery could have been ended without terrible bloodshed and also that perhaps the driving factor for the war involved alternative interests other than slavery. In any case, the end result is that the political agreement of secession was effectively made void through the Civil War.

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes in or says. I don't look for moral agreement in a federal political candidate. I do agree with the concept that our nation should not be engaging in wars if they are at all avoidable. If Paul has to spin racist ideologies to convince certain segments of the population that war is not the answer, so be it.

His points about the civil war not being just about slavery are true - including competing economic models. Several european powers had abolished slavery prior to the united states and there is a good chance that it may have fallen on it's own volition as the economic system transformed. Yes, while the south may have been trying to hold onto this vestige of an older capitalist model and we can't glorify the south's position, it is equally erroneous to claim the mainstream revisionist perspective and say that slavery was the sole cause of the civil war. Not sure this makes one racist or simple seeing other parts of history that are not really talked about as much in mainstream discourse. As an aside - why wouldn't it be as offensive for someone to be speaking in front of an American flag? One could make the case that the symbolic significance could easily trump that of the confederate one in terms of race and class exploitation.

In 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

It's hard to tell if this article is serious. Spooner was an advocate of secession AND an opponent of slavery. In other words, the North had every right to end slavery, but it had no right to force states to remain in the "Union." To say he was on the side of the North is a laughable oversimplification. You have to think beyond what you were taught in 5th grade. Clearly the author is unable to understand this position, or he is parodying those unable to do so.

Spooner said that compensated emancipation would be better than war, which is exactly what Paul argued in his speech. Considering that 2% of the population, 15 million in today's terms, died because of Lincoln's war, were peaceful alternatives really such a bad idea?

It should also be noted that Spooner and other radical abolitionists were considered "cranks" in their time. Those who challenge the status quo are always smeared with mindless cliches. To the establishment attack artists, anyone arguing for states' rights must, by definition, be a slave holding Neoconfederate. Ron Paul gave a speech in front of a Confederate flag -- HE MUST BE A RACIST!!

Your the Crank . This isn't Soviet Russia .
Just as Every Citizen has the right to relinquish their citizenship , every state has the right to succeed .

Its kind of hard to condemn the use of State's rights when the first use happened in the North, prior to the CW. The free states did not want to support the runaway slave laws.
I believe that you simply choose to be obtuse in understanding Paul's lack of support for the CRA. He supported all measures that removed institutionalized racism. He opposes the use of federal power to legislate morality. Its that simple.
I also believe its hard to condemn a man for slavery who has done as much as he has for minorities. He is quite obviously not racist, no matter the attempts to paint him with such a brush.

I won't charge you for this wisdom although any money you invest would certainly be an improvement.

No candidate is perfect. Some are crazier than others. However, the president is not a king and cannot do what he pleases. Most of Paul's more radical policies will never come to pass due to a gridlocked congress. At the very least, we will get out of all the senseless wars and bring the troops home. That won't happen with Obama, Gingrich, or Romney.

The revisionist argument only works if you disregard the emancipation proclamation and everything that came afterwards. To be sure, had Lincoln not emancipated the slaves he might well be regarded as a monster, not a hero - after all, both north and south recognised slavery when the war began, and before Lincoln emancipated the slaves a number of European powers considered providing aid to the Confederate cause on the basis that so long as the North tolerated slavery it has no right to prevent southern states seceding.

Freeing the slaves, however, fundamentally alters the character of the entire conflict. It ceased to be about an abstract principle of states rights and became about the dignity and freedom of mankind. The Civil War put an end to the notion that slavery was merely a difference of opinion between states.

From "A New Economic View of American History" by Jeremy Atack and Peter Passell.

"Goldin and Lewis's final aggregate estimate of the cost of the war, $6.6 billion, amounts to $206 for every American in 1861--almost twice the average annual per capita consumption before the war. This same amount invested in productive resources at a safe 6 percent annual return could have provided each of the thirty-two million then-living Americans with an annual bonus of about 10 percent of 1860 consumption expenditures forever.

The amount of $6.6 billion would have been enough to buy the freedom of all the slaves (at 1860 market value), to give each slave family a forty-acre farm and a mule, and still have left $3.5 billion for reparations payments to the ex-slaves in lieu of one hundred years of back wages. The South's losses alone ($3.3 billion) would have been sufficient to cover compensated emancipation, land and even the mules. Unfortunately no one was sufficiently prescient in 1860 to understand how expensive the war would really be."

This website is not going to serve as a platform for Confederacy-nostalgist propaganda. Our purpose is to warn progressives away from Ron Paul, not to legitimize reactionary cranks with "debate." All you fools can go get your own websites and diss me there to your hearts' content. Thanks for the hits, I think I made a few bucks off you guys anyway!

Adios.