One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Evraim]

I wouldn't really classify any Founding Father socialist, mainly as socialist theory still was not that developed around the formation of the nation.

No no they certainly weren't socialist, but they did support some socialistic policies, contrary to what the average right winger wants you to think.

They weren't generally Socialist, though. The fact that they were mostly influenced by Locke means that a nigh impossibility what with his emphasis of life, liberty, and property. Of course, it would be a mistake to classify Locke as a libertarian because, well, he wasn't. The founders came to agreement that the federal government should have the ability to establish a post office, construct roads, maintain a military, and levy taxes. However, I would assert that America was much less Socialist in its early history than it is now. I would say FDR is probably the closest we've ever come to Socialism, and he wasn't a Socialist.

To be fair, he's right. Until 2004 I didn't realize there was a party even more corrupt and abhorrent to what the Founders envisioned than the Republican party.

You really hate libertarians... Would you care to talk about it?

Not really. They were progressives who didn't much care for one of the largest corporations at the time (The East India Trade Company) getting tax-exempt status in Colonial England.

And business regulation was deemed an important enough power to give to congress in the Constitution.

Hell, even Monroe wouldn't label himself a libertarian.

The American Progressive Movement didn't really happen until the early twentieth century. Remember the Bull-Moose Party?

[Fr33domland]

Obama loves you all. Do not betray Dear Leader.

[Death Metal]

Obama loves you all.

He does, unlike Ron Paul, who only loves your willful ignorance as it's easy to exploit.

The American Progressive Movement didn't really happen until the early twentieth century. Remember the Bull-Moose Party?

Apples and oranges. My use of progressivism is referring to their want of social and political reform, not the Progressive movement. Also Progressivism (mislabeled by most as liberalism) vs Conservatism.

[Fr33domland]

I'm sorry I don't believe your conspiracy theories. At least you guys spent a lot of money on it, I'll give you that.

[Death Metal]

I didn't spend a dime on investigating the truth behind the Golden Dictator Ron Paul.

Unlike Paul's lie machine SuperPAC which spends millions of dollars making up lies about our foreign policy while simultaneously plagiarizing the plot of Red Dawn.

[Ravineworld]

I didn't spend a dime on investigating the truth behind the Golden Dictator Ron Paul.

Unlike Paul's lie machine SuperPAC which spends millions of dollars making up lies about our foreign policy while simultaneously plagiarizing the plot of Red Dawn.

Really?
Paul is right on foreign policy.
The US basically was an isolationist state up until WWI, and even after that, we weren't really committed to "fixing" the world, until WWII. And during that time, the US was a growing nation both politically, economically, and by population.

[Farnhamia]

I didn't spend a dime on investigating the truth behind the Golden Dictator Ron Paul.

Unlike Paul's lie machine SuperPAC which spends millions of dollars making up lies about our foreign policy while simultaneously plagiarizing the plot of Red Dawn.

Really?
Paul is right on foreign policy.
The US basically was an isolationist state up until WWI, and even after that, we weren't really committed to "fixing" the world, until WWII. And during that time, the US was a growing nation both politically, economically, and by population.

Economically? I suppose, except for all those pesky panics and recessions and depressions. Since the US population has been increasing continuously since the 1700s, I don't think you can say that "isolationism" is the cause.

And have we really be so isolationist? There was the war with England in 1812 to 1814, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, not to mention the actions against pirates around the world, the opening of Japan, interventions in Nicaragua and Uruguay, a little show of force in the Eastern Mediterranean after Americans were killed at Jaffa, the conflict with Korea, a landing in Egypt ... the list really does go on and on, and the last one I listed was in 1882.

And how did we grow politically before WW1? With Jim Crow laws?

[Ravineworld]

Looks like Ron Paul won in the Virgin Islands in terms of popular vote, but lost in terms of delegates.
yay for Paulites!

[Ravineworld]

Really?
Paul is right on foreign policy.
The US basically was an isolationist state up until WWI, and even after that, we weren't really committed to "fixing" the world, until WWII. And during that time, the US was a growing nation both politically, economically, and by population.

Economically? I suppose, except for all those pesky panics and recessions and depressions. Since the US population has been increasing continuously since the 1700s, I don't think you can say that "isolationism" is the cause.

And have we really be so isolationist? There was the war with England in 1812 to 1814, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, not to mention the actions against pirates around the world, the opening of Japan, interventions in Nicaragua and Uruguay, a little show of force in the Eastern Mediterranean after Americans were killed at Jaffa, the conflict with Korea, a landing in Egypt ... the list really does go on and on, and the last one I listed was in 1882.

And how did we grow politically before WW1? With Jim Crow laws?

We were attacked in all of those wars. We fought back. That's legit.
The economy was growing before the depression (which conveniently started after a less isolationist policy was established).
Face it. The US was fine until we stopped our non-interventionist foreign policy. While, we may have had problems, they were, at the time, being solved. You can't expect the people that lived 100 years ago to be asking for gay marriage legalization. Although surprisingly, drug laws were very lax at the time (a 5 year old could by heroin with no questions asked).
Of course, after we left the gold standard, prohibited alcohol, and started an interventionist foreign policy, we ended up in the great depression

[Farnhamia]

Economically? I suppose, except for all those pesky panics and recessions and depressions. Since the US population has been increasing continuously since the 1700s, I don't think you can say that "isolationism" is the cause.

And have we really be so isolationist? There was the war with England in 1812 to 1814, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, not to mention the actions against pirates around the world, the opening of Japan, interventions in Nicaragua and Uruguay, a little show of force in the Eastern Mediterranean after Americans were killed at Jaffa, the conflict with Korea, a landing in Egypt ... the list really does go on and on, and the last one I listed was in 1882.

And how did we grow politically before WW1? With Jim Crow laws?

We were attacked in all of those wars. We fought back. That's legit.
The economy was growing before the depression (which conveniently started after a less isolationist policy was established).
Face it. The US was fine until we stopped our non-interventionist foreign policy. While, we may have had problems, they were, at the time, being solved. You can't expect the people that lived 100 years ago to be asking for gay marriage legalization. Although surprisingly, drug laws were very lax at the time (a 5 year old could by heroin with no questions asked).
Of course, after we left the gold standard, prohibited alcohol, and started an interventionist foreign policy, we ended up in the great depression

*sigh* Fine. I can see you aren't willing to even entertain the idea that you and Ron Paul might be wrong, so there's really no point in arguing. Going back to the political and economic policies that were in force prior to 1917 is impossible and would irreparably damage the nation.

[Wikkiwallana]

Economically? I suppose, except for all those pesky panics and recessions and depressions. Since the US population has been increasing continuously since the 1700s, I don't think you can say that "isolationism" is the cause.

And have we really be so isolationist? There was the war with England in 1812 to 1814, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, not to mention the actions against pirates around the world, the opening of Japan, interventions in Nicaragua and Uruguay, a little show of force in the Eastern Mediterranean after Americans were killed at Jaffa, the conflict with Korea, a landing in Egypt ... the list really does go on and on, and the last one I listed was in 1882.

And how did we grow politically before WW1? With Jim Crow laws?

We were attacked in all of those wars. We fought back. That's legit.
The economy was growing before the depression (which conveniently started after a less isolationist policy was established).
Face it. The US was fine until we stopped our non-interventionist foreign policy. While, we may have had problems, they were, at the time, being solved. You can't expect the people that lived 100 years ago to be asking for gay marriage legalization. Although surprisingly, drug laws were very lax at the time (a 5 year old could by heroin with no questions asked).
Of course, after we left the gold standard, prohibited alcohol, and started an interventionist foreign policy, we ended up in the great depression

We didn't leave the gold standard until Nixon. Prohibition was put in place ten years before the depression and repealed four years after. This makes me seriously question your understanding of the causes of the depression.

[Kaeshar]

Economically? I suppose, except for all those pesky panics and recessions and depressions. Since the US population has been increasing continuously since the 1700s, I don't think you can say that "isolationism" is the cause.

And have we really be so isolationist? There was the war with England in 1812 to 1814, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, not to mention the actions against pirates around the world, the opening of Japan, interventions in Nicaragua and Uruguay, a little show of force in the Eastern Mediterranean after Americans were killed at Jaffa, the conflict with Korea, a landing in Egypt ... the list really does go on and on, and the last one I listed was in 1882.

And how did we grow politically before WW1? With Jim Crow laws?

We were attacked in all of those wars. We fought back. That's legit.
The economy was growing before the depression (which conveniently started after a less isolationist policy was established).
Face it. The US was fine until we stopped our non-interventionist foreign policy. While, we may have had problems, they were, at the time, being solved. You can't expect the people that lived 100 years ago to be asking for gay marriage legalization. Although surprisingly, drug laws were very lax at the time (a 5 year old could by heroin with no questions asked).
Of course, after we left the gold standard, prohibited alcohol, and started an interventionist foreign policy, we ended up in the great depression

It was the other way around in 1812, we declared war first, but yes the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War were when we were attacked first and fought back. Although the cause of the Spanish-American war is debateable.

Also, while prohibiting alcohol was a mistake, it has nothing to do with having or not having an interventionist foriegn policy, and we left the gold standard so that we could compete on a global scale.

[Farnhamia]

We were attacked in all of those wars. We fought back. That's legit.
The economy was growing before the depression (which conveniently started after a less isolationist policy was established).
Face it. The US was fine until we stopped our non-interventionist foreign policy. While, we may have had problems, they were, at the time, being solved. You can't expect the people that lived 100 years ago to be asking for gay marriage legalization. Although surprisingly, drug laws were very lax at the time (a 5 year old could by heroin with no questions asked).
Of course, after we left the gold standard, prohibited alcohol, and started an interventionist foreign policy, we ended up in the great depression

It was the other way around in 1812, we declared war first, but yes the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War were when we were attacked first and fought back. Although the cause of the Spanish-American war is debateable.

Also, while prohibiting alcohol was a mistake, it has nothing to do with having or not having an interventionist foriegn policy, and we left the gold standard so that we could compete on a global scale.

[Ravineworld]

We were attacked in all of those wars. We fought back. That's legit.
The economy was growing before the depression (which conveniently started after a less isolationist policy was established).
Face it. The US was fine until we stopped our non-interventionist foreign policy. While, we may have had problems, they were, at the time, being solved. You can't expect the people that lived 100 years ago to be asking for gay marriage legalization. Although surprisingly, drug laws were very lax at the time (a 5 year old could by heroin with no questions asked).
Of course, after we left the gold standard, prohibited alcohol, and started an interventionist foreign policy, we ended up in the great depression

*sigh* Fine. I can see you aren't willing to even entertain the idea that you and Ron Paul might be wrong, so there's really no point in arguing. Going back to the political and economic policies that were in force prior to 1917 is impossible and would irreparably damage the nation.

He's wrong on quite a few things. (mainly social issues)
I am not your normal Paulbot.

[Farnhamia]

*sigh* Fine. I can see you aren't willing to even entertain the idea that you and Ron Paul might be wrong, so there's really no point in arguing. Going back to the political and economic policies that were in force prior to 1917 is impossible and would irreparably damage the nation.

He's wrong on quite a few things. (mainly social issues)
I am not your normal Paulbot.

You're close enough for government work.

[Ravineworld]

We were attacked in all of those wars. We fought back. That's legit.
The economy was growing before the depression (which conveniently started after a less isolationist policy was established).
Face it. The US was fine until we stopped our non-interventionist foreign policy. While, we may have had problems, they were, at the time, being solved. You can't expect the people that lived 100 years ago to be asking for gay marriage legalization. Although surprisingly, drug laws were very lax at the time (a 5 year old could by heroin with no questions asked).
Of course, after we left the gold standard, prohibited alcohol, and started an interventionist foreign policy, we ended up in the great depression

We didn't leave the gold standard until Nixon. Prohibition was put in place ten years before the depression and repealed four years after. This makes me seriously question your understanding of the causes of the depression.

The US started leaving the gold standard at the beginning of the century. Right before the depression.
The US left it's original foreign policy at the beginning of the century. Right before the depression.
America banned alcohol and placed restrictions on drugs. Right before the depression.
While not the cause of the great depression (that should be discussed somewhere else), they clearly didn't help much, and they may have been a small part of the cause.

[Ravineworld]

He's wrong on quite a few things. (mainly social issues)
I am not your normal Paulbot.

You're close enough for government work.

What kind of government work.

[Farnhamia]

You're close enough for government work.

What kind of government work.

It's a figure of speech.

[Ravineworld]

What kind of government work.

It's a figure of speech.

Oh.
Got it.

[Kaeshar]

It was the other way around in 1812, we declared war first, but yes the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War were when we were attacked first and fought back. Although the cause of the Spanish-American war is debateable.

Also, while prohibiting alcohol was a mistake, it has nothing to do with having or not having an interventionist foriegn policy, and we left the gold standard so that we could compete on a global scale.

I meant the initial cause since it was thought that the USS Maine (which was the flashpoint) was diliberately bombed, however the Spanish said that it was an internal explosion*. And yes the media jumped the gun and fanned the flames of public opinion at that time. From the wiki, the media that did it at that time were just as bad as Fox News in terms of fanning sensationalism.

*Even now, after several investigations over the years, it isn't 100% conclusive as to the cause.

[Deutsche Demokratische Republik]

I'd like to see one month of a Ron Paul presidency so I can laugh at the results.

[Wikkiwallana]

We didn't leave the gold standard until Nixon. Prohibition was put in place ten years before the depression and repealed four years after. This makes me seriously question your understanding of the causes of the depression.

The US started leaving the gold standard at the beginning of the century. Right before the depression.
The US left it's original foreign policy at the beginning of the century. Right before the depression.
America banned alcohol and placed restrictions on drugs. Right before the depression.
While not the cause of the great depression (that should be discussed somewhere else), they clearly didn't help much, and they may have been a small part of the cause.

No, we left the bimetallic standard, because silver was not helping at all. We were on the gold standard before, during, and after the depression.
As for prohibition, 10 years in not "right before". I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

[Free Soviets]

We didn't leave the gold standard until Nixon.

well FDR did effectively take us off of it, domestically. and that was an undeniable good thing to do, since...

[Kaeshar]

We didn't leave the gold standard until Nixon.

well FDR did effectively take us off of it, domestically. and that was an undeniable good thing to do, since...

Sucks to be France since they did it right before WWII started.

[Ravineworld]

The US started leaving the gold standard at the beginning of the century. Right before the depression.
The US left it's original foreign policy at the beginning of the century. Right before the depression.
America banned alcohol and placed restrictions on drugs. Right before the depression.
While not the cause of the great depression (that should be discussed somewhere else), they clearly didn't help much, and they may have been a small part of the cause.

No, we left the bimetallic standard, because silver was not helping at all. We were on the gold standard before, during, and after the depression.
As for prohibition, 10 years in not "right before". I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

OK, I looked it up and I was wrong. I confused raising the value of the standard during the depression with leaving it and leaving the bimetallic standard. oops.
The recession of the 80's started soon after we left the gold standard.
10 years before is pretty much "right before". We banned alcohol, and within a decade there is economic turmoil.
We change our foreign policy, and soon after, there is economic turmoil.
Sound like pre-great recession?
Yes, yes it does. (war in iraq, drug war escalation, currency debasement and debt)
While bubble's caused the depression, currency issues, prohibition, and war didn't exactly help much.