AOL poll on civil war & Dr. Paul

[greenwave88]

It is truley amazing that the media will go to such lengths to take votes from Dr. Paul. This is from AOL, a classic misquote meant to portray Dr. Paul as crazy.

http://news.aol.com/political-machi...ng-to-fight-civil-war/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

If you watched Meet the Press you would know that this statement had little to do with what Dr. Paul was arguing.

 

[drulay]

It is truley amazing that the media will go to such lengths to take votes from Dr. Paul. This is from AOL, a classic misquote meant to portray Dr. Paul as crazy.

http://news.aol.com/political-machi...ng-to-fight-civil-war/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

If you watched Meet the Press you would know that this statement had little to do with what Dr. Paul was arguing.

Read the article link:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/ron-paul-war/

While Paul is right to bemoan the deaths of 600,000 in our nation's bloodiest conflict, to say that everything would have been just dandy if the federal government would have just ponied up the dough to free 3,949,557 slaves at the start of the 1860's (as compared with the the edict which freed roughly 14,000 slaves in Britain) seems a tad naive.

Should all wars be avoided if possible? Indeed, and Paul is right that the conflict in Iraq was utterly unnecessary. The Civil War, however, is another matter. As others have pointed out, sometimes there's no shoving history's ungainly foot into a present-day ideological slipper.

I don't know where I stand on this, I'd have to do more research, know a bit more history. Obviously it is a debateable issue, but for the MSM to make a huge deal of his opinion on this rather than covering the issues, and the platform of his campaign makes it definitely seem a bit of a hit piece.

 

[Noleader]

The Civil War was not going to be avoided... Slaves were not the point of the War. The thing that should have been avoided was using the Civil War as a means to show why there needed to be a strong federal government. Post war it became taboo to be a state rights supporter. That was enhanced when some of the loudest people proclaiming states rights were bitter racist southern states. The federal government used this as a means to turn the states into nothing more then a subservent puppet government.

That is part of the reason Paul is getting smeared as a racist. He is one of the few people that stongly supports state rights and understands the role they play in keeping the federal government in check. As such people quickly reflect on history and remember the other folks that claimed state rights. The thing they tend to not notice is Paul is pushing state rights to limit federal government, not to support a state goal to demote citizens to slaves (As ex-confederate state governments did post Civil War).

If he really wants to cite the Civil War he really should target reconstruction... It is the first time America tried Nation Building, with force, and we could not even get it right in our own country.

 

[akforme]

He's actually pulling away on the regular poll, maybe more people are waking up to the BS. Besides WHO CARES.