The piece was fair, you Paul supporters just refuse to conform and adapt to reality. Your issues are with truth and facts, such stubborn things.

And in what section would you find this? No, madam, I think you are wrong.

The story also does not mention Ron Paul's reason for opposing the civil rights act. It's not because he dosen't believe in civil rights. He had a problem with the way it was written.

I wish CNN's reporting was as honest and consistent as Dr. Paul.

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/

And then Rebecca, you leave out Ron Paul's comments on the civil war, in which he states that 600,000 people shouldn't have died. Is it wrong for Paul to try to imagine a way to free slaves rather then war?

Rebecca, this is a biased article and it should be corrected and adjusted to portray Ron Paul's real views. Instead its tightly edited to hide the truth, and to reveal your personal views. Luckily smart American voters will see through this.

God Bless Ron Paul

Brian Glenn

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/

There is a thing called the Associated Press Stylebook. For every person who decries this article, I suggest you do some research on the topic. Her article is clear, concise, and does not break any of the fundamental principles. And with the way he said it, I heard Weasel. Unless there was a transcript after the show, or the show was scripted, she was not in the wrong.

As for the rest of it, she did what any actual reporter would do. She gathered, disseminated, edited, and produced a piece, and for something that probably won't go any farther than the Ticker. And she did it within reasonable boundaries and with integrity.

Do your research before you cry 'hit piece'. Oh, and while you're at it, do your research on your favorite candidate, and stop acting like children. And please, if you want to say something is 'bad journalism', learn some grammar and proper usage, you hypocrites.

The strike-through on the word "weasel" was cute. Does anyone mention the word "weasel" when Clinton fails to commit to a stance on the issues?!?!

Cant offend those who sign your paycheck though. If you actually engaged in journalism, you wouldn't have the pretty title of "Associate Political Editor," would you Rebecca?

If I wanted to be as cute as you, I would have put a HTML tag to make that read: ASSOCIATE

To the rest of you folks who are comfortable with the goverenment doing your thinking for you and don't mind paying the price of OUR freedom,,,Go ahead on,, support one of the other power grabbing weasles running.
As an example,, housing prices are declining all over the country. What does government do? They access properties at higher than before the mortgage crunch and tax accordingly! Is this what government is supposed to do? I've read the constitution and bill of rights and I think not.

I am saying the South at that time was not willing to cooperate with the North period. Whether it be Kansas as a Free State or "buying slaves".

Even many in the North were uncommitted to freeing the slaves. Did you know the Emancipation Proclamation came about as a result of the North getting their butts whipped time after time? It was a last ditch effort by Lincoln to win the war.

Regardless, this is the least of Paul's problems. Personally, I was disappointed. I wish someone with this message could communicate it and implement it successfully. Paul is not that guy.

And to whomever said that they are voting for Paul to "save the Republic", is doing nothing but wasting their vote.

Find a candidate with similiar ideas. The only guy I know who has the "original" Reagan philosophy, prior to him becoming a "traitor" (I know he said he never called Reagan a traitor, and I believe him)is Thompson. He is all about weak federal and strong state governments.

Please find a new career.

Putting the word "Weasel" and crossing it out is a lowlife tactic. Cherry picking out of context and outright slander.

You should be ashamed. You are clearly biased.

Go watch the interview and decide for yourself. This article is so incorrect that it belongs in the "fiction" department. My 4-year-old can write better, and he can't write yet!

Brazil had a massive slave population and did not have to go to war to end it. In their case, the geography was inverted – the North used the slaves for sugar cane production while the South was the industrial center. Today, the country with the largest population of African origin is Nigeria, followed by Brazil. Are you saying that the US is less capable than Brazil?

What you don't understand is that "beating the Dems" in the general election is not our primary goal. Our primary goal is Saving our Republic. Supporting the likes of Romney, Giuliani or McCain aint gonna help us achieve our goal!

So, let me get this straight. The North was supposed to simply offer to buy all the slaves in order to stop slavery. Slavery was legal! The south did not want to sell their slaves. How would the farms function?

Idiotic! It would have enabled slavery to exist for many many more years. And not like it existed thru the mid 1900's. We would have continued to use slaves for many more years before a) the North had the money to buy the slaves b) The South would allow something like that c) The people of the South would recognize blacks as being free.

The United States cannot be compared to other european countries because we were so reliant on slavery. And, there was a true belief that blacks were inferior. And, there was a great divide between the North and South, with the South being very concerned about what the North was up to.

This guy said we should do away with Public Schools.

Legalization of ALL drugs. He clarifies that by saying he thinks drugs are bad and teaches his children that they are bad. Good for his children, but what about the children that don't have hands on parents???????

Again, the message of small federal government and strong state governments is a great message. This guy is a kook!

What is most amusing with all of this, if a Ron Paul fan addresses my post (which I doubt anyway) they won't address the issues I bring up. Because they cannot address issues. They mention the macro view (small federal government, sticking to constitution) but never explain how to actually implement that. Why? Because you can't! Paul tried yesterday and failed miserably!

NEXT LIBERTARIAN PLEASE

Because you have to be asleep to believe the version of the American Dream they're pedaling. His financial policies would make our current economy seem utopian, his foreign policy would get a positive grin from the Tokugawas, the Caliphates, and the Roman Empire from earlier years. Oh, and wait until he destroys the federal reserve and the Board of Education. With the FBI in close behind, because he doesn't want a 'government policing everything'.

Go ahead and vote for him. I, however, will vote for reason.