What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Farnhamia]

Good point.

RP's mother's ovum: Hey! Hey! What are you guys doing? I think my rights are being violated! Help! Statists!

His damn statist mother violated his rights by force feeding him in regards to his connection by the umbilical cord.

Excellent point. Probably made him eat strained peas, too.

[Canteron]

Well for Ron Paul it was from conception.

Ron Paul is goa'uld?

GOOD GOD MAN!

[Jedi8246]

Ironic that a guy using a pre-U.S. flag doesn't know that.

Not really. Anyone who actually paid any attention to American history would be well aware of why most libertarian arguments are not only wishful thinking, but discredited bullshit.

That's kinda completely false.

[Revolutopia]

Not really. Anyone who actually paid any attention to American history would be well aware of why most libertarian arguments are not only wishful thinking, but discredited bullshit.

That's kinda completely false.

Well, there is the fact that a good number of the Founding Fathers would fail to fit under the Libertarian umbrella that Libertarians try to establish them as being.

For Example,
Washington(and Hamilton) established the first national and central bank, also he established the first individual mandate.
Adams passed the Alien and Sedations Act, thus limiting freedom of speech
Jefferson passed the Embargo Act thus restricting if not out right forbidding foreign trade(restricting the free market)
Madison created the Second national and central bank

and that was just off the top of my head.

[Jedi8246]

That's kinda completely false.

Well, there is the fact that a good number of the Founding Fathers would fail to fit under the Libertarian umbrella that Libertarians try to establish them as being.

For Example,
Washington(and Hamilton) established the first national and central bank, also he established the first individual mandate.
Adams passed the Alien and Sedations Act, thus limiting freedom of speech
Jefferson passed the Embargo Act thus restricting if not out right forbidding foreign trade(restricting the free market)
Madison created the Second national and central bank

and that was just off the top of my head.

I never tried to say they were Libertarians. But they did support many things Libertarians support.

In response:
Hamilton was a Federalist. He was the minority in the Founding Fathers.

Washington established the Bank to satisfy Hamilton types. It was a way of uniting the country. Of course nobody really liked it. It would be ignoring history to ignore that Washington really didn't want to create a central bank. That's why it didn't get renewed.

Adams was an even smaller minority. The Alien and Sedition acts were hated by just about everyone, including other Federalists. Citing a minority within a minority view of the Founding Fathers doesn't back you at all.

Ah, but you easily ignore the history surrounding the passage of the Embargo Act. British and French vessels were bullying US vessels and destroying property of America. We were getting walked all over. The Embargo Act was an attempt to prevent this without going to war. The free market was not occurring anyways because of the British and French destroying our vessels. Ultimately the Embargo Act was a big failure, although it did help end our dependency on British manufacturing, and Jefferson signed the repeal of it.

Madison did so because of the War of 1812. Once again, another showing of how wars with foreign nations leads to financial trouble. Ultimately, the bank went bankrupt and they once again didn't renew it.

So basically your "proof" ignores events of the time or the thoughts and feelings behind the decisions. While the Founding Fathers are not libertarians, and neither is Ron Paul as you adamantly argue, they had strong libertarian style strains to them.

[Revolutopia]

Washington established the Bank to satisfy Hamilton types. It was a way of uniting the country. Of course nobody really liked it. It would be ignoring history to ignore that Washington really didn't want to create a central bank. That's why it didn't get renewed.

Washington wasn't in office when it was to get renewed, and it only failed to get renewed by one vote during a time when the Federalists were on a decline. Additionally, you did not address the issue of Washington's individual mandate.

Ah, but you easily ignore the history surrounding the passage of the Embargo Act. British and French vessels were bullying US vessels and destroying property of America. We were getting walked all over. The Embargo Act was an attempt to prevent this without going to war. The free market was not occurring anyways because of the British and French destroying our vessels. Ultimately the Embargo Act was a big failure, although it did help end our dependency on British manufacturing, and Jefferson signed the repeal of it.

None of the history negates the idea that Embargo Act was strong violation of both individual rights and restriction on the Free Market.

Madison did so because of the War of 1812. Once again, another showing of how wars with foreign nations leads to financial trouble. Ultimately, the bank went bankrupt and they once again didn't renew it.

The Second Bank collapsed because Andrew Jackson took all the nation's money out of it, and it was not renewed because Jackson vetoed it and congress could not override it.

So basically your "proof" ignores events of the time or the thoughts and feelings behind the decisions. While the Founding Fathers are not libertarians, and neither is Ron Paul as you adamantly argue, they had strong libertarian style strains to them.

The events and thoughts and feelings behind the decision should not matter to a libertarian, as all good libertarians should understand that government should not get involved with the market despite popular feelings. As otherwise shouldn't they also agree that the New Deal was justified as the events of the time and the thoughts and feelings behind the decisions was that is was needed.

Adams was an even smaller minority. The Alien and Sedition acts were hated by just about everyone, including other Federalists. Citing a minority within a minority view of the Founding Fathers doesn't back you at all.

Adams was still a founding father and more importantly was one of the few elected president, thus fitted the list that I was making.

[San Espara]

The Founding Fathers were brillant men without a doubt, but anyone who pines for the days of the late 18th Century also fail to realize is that the early US was an agarian state. Those people who so adamantly maintain that the Founding Fathers "would spin in their graves" if they saw the US today fail to take into account that the Founding Fathers wouldn't know what to make of a truly globalized economy and Wall Street.

Personally I side with social libertarians but economically I favor a little more government involvement than blind faith in the market.

[Distruzio]

He wants to brand anyone who gets an abortion as a criminal,

No he doesn't.

and he believes legal and illegal immigrants should not have freedom.

No he doesn't.

He believes one big reason we are in debt is because of the federal reserve.

No he doesn't.

I don't like him.

No, you don't.

[The Black Forrest]

He wants to brand anyone who gets an abortion as a criminal,

No he doesn't.

and he believes legal and illegal immigrants should not have freedom.

No he doesn't.

He believes one big reason we are in debt is because of the federal reserve.

No he doesn't.

I don't like him.

No, you don't.

You know you could have simply replied and typed "NUH UH!"

[Hathradic States]

I'd vote for him.

[Distruzio]

No he doesn't.



No he doesn't.



No he doesn't.



No, you don't.

You know you could have simply replied and typed "NUH UH!"

My point might have been misinterpreted. Ron Paul specifically does NOT say any of the things FTR believes he does. Saying Nuh Uh implies that I merely disagree with FTR. While I do, that isn't precisely what is in question.

[Kilobugya]

You don't have to turn another land outright into a province to completely dominate it in every way. See India before 1858.

I did. It was hot. And dusty.

In condemning the "American Empire," will you also condemn the old Soviet one? And the imperialist attempts of China to impose themselves on Tibet? And Chile's and Honduras' mistreatment of native peoples? And Saddam's mistreatment of his own people? As for Afghanistan, there was a very specific reason we invaded that country, unlike Iraq. Do you remember what it was?

A crime doesn't excuse another.

[Kilobugya]

Tell that you don't have an empire to Chile. Or to Honduras. Or Irak. Or Afghanistan. Or any place in which you removed, by force, a government you didn't like to install a puppet. That's what I call "an Empire".

You would be incorrect in your definition. Had we turned those places into provinces, I would agree. We didn't. Besides, it was for their own good. People lose sight of that. There needs to be some tough love in this world if things are to improve. Speaking of which, I believe the last letter in that third country you named is a "Q" not a "K".

Most Empires are smart enough to rule through proxies, not directly. As for "it was for their own good", that's the typical saying of any empire to impose its will by strength to others. So the fact that you say just reinforce my claim.

[Kilobugya]

And Chile's and Honduras' mistreatment of native peoples?

Oh, missed that part which is really "funny". Chile's and Honduras' mistreatment of native peoples was (is) by far WORSE under US-imposed directorship (Pinochet/Lobo) than it was with the previous left-wing government the US removed (Allende/Zelaya).

[Awll]

he's cool, he's cool. probably the best candidate imo. However American's require someone with a bit more balls unfortunately, someone who'd end up invading Iran or acting slightly over-zealous.

[Klowr]

As someone not from the USA, I can't really say... but from the debates, I support him more then Obama, he's the only one of the republican nominations who is sane; its just that he's on the wrong party...

[Wikkiwallana]

Listen, the title of the damn chart is "U.S. Historical Inflation Rate". Considering there was no U.S. before the late 1700s, I think it makes it a bit suspicious. Yes people lived in a place that would eventually be called the U.S., but if that's what we're trying to show a graph of that isn't an accurate title.

The entire thing is bogus anyway, there are periods of time when the US didn't used the gold standard within that chart. Greenbacks anyone? Nevermind that the government SET the price of gold, and artificially controlled it by many means.

Graph came off of wikipedia, all I did was add the red line to indicate when we stopped being the gold market's bitch.

[Jedi8246]

Listen, the title of the damn chart is "U.S. Historical Inflation Rate". Considering there was no U.S. before the late 1700s, I think it makes it a bit suspicious. Yes people lived in a place that would eventually be called the U.S., but if that's what we're trying to show a graph of that isn't an accurate title.

The entire thing is bogus anyway, there are periods of time when the US didn't used the gold standard within that chart. Greenbacks anyone? Nevermind that the government SET the price of gold, and artificially controlled it by many means.

Graph came off of wikipedia, all I did was add the red line to indicate when we stopped being the gold market's bitch.

Your line is false. The Gold Reserve Act took us off the gold standard as we knew it. Nixon just completely finished all ties to gold.

[Revolutopia]

Graph came off of wikipedia, all I did was add the red line to indicate when we stopped being the gold market's bitch.

Your line is false. The Gold Reserve Act took us off the gold standard as we knew it. Nixon just completely finished all ties to gold.

Even if that is true there is still damning evidence of the pogo sticking between high inflation and deflation before the Gold Reserve Act.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

As someone not from the USA, I can't really say... but from the debates, I support him more then Obama, he's the only one of the republican nominations who is sane; its just that he's on the wrong party...

just because he's not from the party you usually support doesn't mean that you have to hate him.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

Listen, the title of the damn chart is "U.S. Historical Inflation Rate". Considering there was no U.S. before the late 1700s, I think it makes it a bit suspicious. Yes people lived in a place that would eventually be called the U.S., but if that's what we're trying to show a graph of that isn't an accurate title.

The entire thing is bogus anyway, there are periods of time when the US didn't used the gold standard within that chart. Greenbacks anyone? Nevermind that the government SET the price of gold, and artificially controlled it by many means.

Graph came off of wikipedia, all I did was add the red line to indicate when we stopped being the gold market's bitch.

ending the gold standard is what caused problems in the first place! the economy needs to be anchored to something.

[Neu Leonstein]

ending the gold standard is what caused problems in the first place! the economy needs to be anchored to something.

No.

Ask the Greeks.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

ending the gold standard is what caused problems in the first place! the economy needs to be anchored to something.

No.

Ask the Greeks.

the euro is what caused their problems

[Revolutopia]

Graph came off of wikipedia, all I did was add the red line to indicate when we stopped being the gold market's bitch.

ending the gold standard is what caused problems in the first place! the economy needs to be anchored to something.

Did you even look at the graph in question? In that it directly shows that even during the period when we were on the gold standard that we faced rapid inflation and deflation.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

ending the gold standard is what caused problems in the first place! the economy needs to be anchored to something.

Did you even look at the graph in question? In that it directly shows that even during the period when we were on the gold standard that we faced rapid inflation and deflation.

it still went up and down, albeit less.

maybe we need to get a new standard, like diamonds or something