Jeffrey Scott11:29AMDec 26th 2007

Ron Paul really stepped in it with this asinine comment. He is one of those libertarian nuts who are of the opinion that we do not need a military and should never fight....well that's insane and he just shot himself in the "presidential foot" with that stupid comment!

Duallie11:31AMDec 26th 2007

What scares me the most about Ron Paul is the number of nut cases that support his wild views.

Chuck11:32AMDec 26th 2007

Each day Ron Paul acts like a nut, talks like a nut.

He is a nutcase.

Barky11:33AMDec 26th 2007

What's more to say...Ron Paul. He does nothing but give the libs for ammunition. Ron Paul supporter=liberal/libertarian...nut case.

jharley7811:34AMDec 26th 2007

Ron Paul proved once again he's a freaking idiot!!!! next I supposed he'll say the American Revolution was "optional" and that we coulda just bided our time and had "peace talks" with England......ok, the decade for MORONS for president has already been decided Paul; Bush cornered the market on that; your too late.

ou4011:36AMDec 26th 2007

U

H. Squires11:37AMDec 26th 2007

Among other weknesses, Ron Paul doesn't know history. Lincoln didn't start the civil war...just like Bush didn't start the war against Islamic fanatics.

Mark11:38AMDec 26th 2007

Ron Paul is a JOKE! No one is going to vote for this idiot! He should get out of the race. And all the DAFT internet people that give him money need to re- check their intelligence. What the HELL are THEY thinking?

ou4011:38AMDec 26th 2007

Ummm...hello! Is this a good use of a candidate's resources? I'd rather any potential future leader would focus on things he/she can change and not something that happened 150 years ago.

asdfsgf11:39AMDec 26th 2007

ron paul will win!!!!!!!!

xavier68711:40AMDec 26th 2007

It is amazing how the media twists everything people say for their own benefit. Ron Paul said that we should not have gone to war and instead should have done what all other countries did to free the slaves. What they did was the government bought the slaves and then freed them. By doing this we would have saves thousands of lives instead of going to war.

Outzawe11:40AMDec 26th 2007

I knew Ron Paul was a nut case, now he's just gone beyond nut case, they may have to invent a word for this level of crazy in a person. I'm ashamed to have this man in my party.

Tom Vollman11:40AMDec 26th 2007

Poor fellow. He's lost his mind. Does he think slavery would have been driven from our society by words ?

Jefferson said: "The issue of slavery can be likened to holding a wolf by the ears. You dare not release the beast for fear of what will happen, but yet continuing to hold just delays the ineviatable."

Jefferson also knew that the time was not right to release the wolfs ears. Lincoln.....thank God......knew the time was right and had the courage to face the issue.

Our country could not have continued half slave and half free.

What is wrong with this Ron Paul guy ?

cajontango11:42AMDec 26th 2007

Why did 600,000 Americans have to die to end a system which was doomed anyway? The reasons for slavery in the U.S. were not hatred but economic. With the advent of more efficient farming equipment, slavery would have been abolished anyway, especially in light of the fact that slavery is a very inefficient means of farm production.
States rights were the issue of the day, not slavery. If you don't believe it then research the New York riots that occurred when the news broke that the war was being fought to 'free slaves'. Also ask yourself why America was the only nation to feel it necessary to kill over a half a million of it's own people to accomplish what had already been done in many nations, (England, etc.), without anyone being killed. Dr. Paul was exactly right, no Civil War was required.
p.s. The term "Civil War" is incorrect. Civil wars are fought between rival factions over the control of the nation/government. The Confederacy had no desire to control the United States, far from it, they were trying to secede FROM it.

Mr America11:42AMDec 26th 2007

About time ,someone has the Guts to speak the truth. Lincoln wanted to build a Navy ,just to return people back to Africa. However ,Industrialist wanted the war ,for Greed and money :(

H. Squires11:42AMDec 26th 2007

Another weakness of Ron Paul has surfaced....he doesn't know history....Lincoln didn't stsrt the Civil
War...just like Bush didn't start the war against Islamic fanatics...

olivol8811:42AMDec 26th 2007

The Civil War was an economic war over slavery, not a moral war against slavery. Paul has it right in criticizing Lincoln because he was, in a sense, a tyrant and a hypocrite (as he and his wife owned slaves themselves).

Garret11:43AMDec 26th 2007

I wouldn't support Ron Paul for President, but realize where he's coming from. He one of the constitiutional adhearants to what they call 'original intent' of the Articles of Confederation which stated that any state had the right to leave the Federal Government.
But you can't really call yourself an American Patriot if you support treason against that Government.

steve11:43AMDec 26th 2007

This is SOOOOO out of context. Ron Paul has simply made the point that there were more peaceful ways Lincoln could have handled slavery. Lots of other countries have abolished slavery WITHOUT going to war. The media is so biased against Ron Paul, it really is ridiculous. But yet everybody listens to dumb out of context comments making it look like Ron Paul's pro-slavery or something, but do no research, and just call him a nut case because they don't want to think any other way but how the media tells them they're supposed to. War is not the only answer for everything. The reason why the country's so screwed up is because nobody wants to think about anything and just be the little puppets that they are.

JIMBOND2711:43AMDec 26th 2007

Of course all of you morons haven't read or heard how he followed up on it...