Quote Originally Posted by canuck View Post
oladub, I disagree with the assertion that this would have successfully checked the south's resolve to claim autonomy in regards to slavery. To me, it is a convenient argument, a feelgood balm on the resentful bubbas of the world.

I cannot understand the enthusiam you have for someone who consistently credits the confederate ideology, in fact, he was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in 2004. He is a bigot, that is all there is to it, not something to be elevated to a president, let alone a congressman.
Think of eminent domain which requires fair payment for what the government takes. The deal is between the individual property owner and the government rather than the south and the government. If a fair deal was offered, slaveowners might not have banded together into the 'south'. They didn't do so in the other ten American countries with slavery.

Ron Paul does not "consistently credit the confederate ideology". Ron Paul voted against making a commemorative medal for Ronald Reagan. Is that supposed to make him a Reagan hater? Same logic. The press threw everything at Ron Paul they could to convince the sheeple that he was a racist and favored Palestinians over Israel for two weeks before the Iowa election. it just made the press look ridiculous and he still came within receiving 3% of his highest polling number. I think what happened is that a lot of people realized that here was an honest politician that did not just say things depending on the way the wind was blowing. He supports your right to drink raw milk or smoke weed even if those aren't popular and PC issues everyone is supposed to support. He was booed in a S. Carolina debate for suggesting the golden rule with respect to the treatment of other nations. And yes, he will point out imperfections in government acts rather than pretend he likes all the emperor's clothes. There are lots of alternatives if you are partial to PC talking flip floppers and liars.