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

[Kaeshar]

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.

I'll let someone else argue the gold standard thing/

And the increase in crime had nothing to do with the economic turmoil?

Be specific, when did we change our foriegn policy and soon after Economic turmoil?

You're completely leaving out the one big reason why there was economic turmoil, the Stock Market crash and the problems with it that led up to said crash.

[Ravineworld]

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.

I'll let someone else argue the gold standard thing/

And the increase in crime had nothing to do with the economic turmoil?

Be specific, when did we change our foriegn policy and soon after Economic turmoil?

You're completely leaving out the one big reason why there was economic turmoil, the Stock Market crash and the problems with it that led up to said crash.

WWI is when we changed our foreign policy. We got involved in a war that didn't belong to us.
Yes, Prohibition affects the economy drastically. While it doesn't cause recessions, it always plays a part in making them worse. Particularly in the US

[Farnhamia]

I'll let someone else argue the gold standard thing/

And the increase in crime had nothing to do with the economic turmoil?

Be specific, when did we change our foriegn policy and soon after Economic turmoil?

You're completely leaving out the one big reason why there was economic turmoil, the Stock Market crash and the problems with it that led up to said crash.

WWI is when we changed our foreign policy. We got involved in a war that didn't belong to us.
Yes, Prohibition affects the economy drastically. While it doesn't cause recessions, it always plays a part in making them worse. Particularly in the US

Prohibition? We did Prohibition once, it didn't work and President Roosevelt asked Congress to amend the Constitution to repeal it, which they did. Actually, the 1920s, when Prohibition was in effect, was an economic boom.

As for WWI, we got involved because of German belligerence against neutral shipping and their approach to Mexico, among other things.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

People who actually know any history wouldn't fall for the kind of nonsense Paul vomits in the first place.

[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.

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.

And we were still doing fine after WWII, it wasn't until we got muddied up with Iraq (which was just Bush 43 wanting to kill Saddam because his daddy couldn't) that we went into a downturn.

Also we weren't really that isolationist. We invaded Indian land during our expansion, we supported Texas' war for independence, we worked deals with France for years after the Revolution.

Speaking of the revolution. You do know how we won that right? Intervention from France.

So if France did what you want America to do, there would be no America.

Ron Paul is WRONG.

[Ravineworld]

WWI is when we changed our foreign policy. We got involved in a war that didn't belong to us.
Yes, Prohibition affects the economy drastically. While it doesn't cause recessions, it always plays a part in making them worse. Particularly in the US

Prohibition? We did Prohibition once, it didn't work and President Roosevelt asked Congress to amend the Constitution to repeal it, which they did. Actually, the 1920s, when Prohibition was in effect, was an economic boom.

As for WWI, we got involved because of German belligerence against neutral shipping and their approach to Mexico, among other things.

Prohibition of drugs. Still prohibition.

[Farnhamia]

Prohibition? We did Prohibition once, it didn't work and President Roosevelt asked Congress to amend the Constitution to repeal it, which they did. Actually, the 1920s, when Prohibition was in effect, was an economic boom.

As for WWI, we got involved because of German belligerence against neutral shipping and their approach to Mexico, among other things.

Prohibition of drugs. Still prohibition.

Okay, here's the thing. "Prohibition," when capitalized, refers to the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act that implemented the ban. Drinking was never illegal, by the way, only the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages. Please say what you mean.

[Evraim]

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.

And we were still doing fine after WWII, it wasn't until we got muddied up with Iraq (which was just Bush 43 wanting to kill Saddam because his daddy couldn't) that we went into a downturn.

Also we weren't really that isolationist. We invaded Indian land during our expansion, we supported Texas' war for independence, we worked deals with France for years after the Revolution.

Speaking of the revolution. You do know how we won that right? Intervention from France.

So if France did what you want America to do, there would be no America.

Ron Paul is WRONG.

When did we have soldiers deployed in India? What is generally meant by American isolationism is that we did not involve ourselves with conflicts not concerning us or in alliances with European states. We still engaged in trade, we still fought when our interests were directly threatened, and, after the Monroe Doctrine, we intervened in the Western hemisphere. Most historians would say that this isolation was broken when Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany during World War I, although it is posible to argue that our war with Spain in the Philipines or the opening of Japan to U.S. commercial interests would qualify as a violation of American isolationism. Essentially, the idea was don't make the Europeans angry if at all possible.

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.

1.) You really don't like Ron Paul...

2.) Source? Why do you presume that one politician doesn't love you while another does? I wouldn't assume somebody loved me unless we were intimately acquainted... Of course, you may know the president, but I would wager that the majority of people do not know his deepest thoughts and emotions.

3.) You're correct about Progressivism and Conservatism if we apply definitions alone. However, political beliefs are terribly difficult to categorize and classify. In fact, I wouldn't consider our founding fathers progressives because they didn't initiate wide-sweeping social, political, or economic reforms. As far as revolutions go, the American Revolution was rather mild. Like the colonial rebellion in Latin America, the dominant group (Europeans) was replaced by another group (American Europeans) which wielded political power. The economic and social structures barely changed at all, and political change was rather modest- and a number of the differences were brought about by disagreements between states and individual founders. If I had to apply labels to the founders, I would call them Republicans (although not all of them were...) and Classical Liberals (see the first point). You could posibly apply the term paleoconservative as well, but they were a diverse group of people.

[Death Metal]

We still engaged in trade, we still fought when our interests were directly threatened, and, after the Monroe Doctrine, we intervened in the Western hemisphere.

In other words, non-isolationist.

[Evraim]

We still engaged in trade, we still fought when our interests were directly threatened, and, after the Monroe Doctrine, we intervened in the Western hemisphere.

In other words, non-isolationist.

Strictly speaking, no. It really shouldn't be called isolationism. It's actually called American Non-Interventionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

However, when somebody mentions American isolationism, they are refering to the policy of maintaining neutrality outside of our zone of influence (the Americas) and avoiding entanglement in European affairs. For example, the United States initially attempted to remove itself from the hostilities between Great Britian and France during the Napoleonic Wars. One example of our efforts was the Emargo Act of 1807, which history will tell you failed miserably.

[Death Metal]

Well, yes, that was part of leading us into the war of 1812, and it was a good thing we stayed buddies with France there.

Still, that only helps prove my point: We're already deeply staked in relations with Europe, removing those stakes won't help us that much, and at the cost of diplomatic relations being further weakened, which will discourage not only international affairs but also corporate interests in our country.

Foreign businesses giving jobs to Americans isn't a bad thing at all either. Volkswagen for example provides plenty of jobs to Americans.

Lending non-combat support to our allies (See: Libya) isn't exactly bad for us either, as it strengthens these diplomatic ties.

[Tahar Joblis]

In other words, non-isolationist.

Strictly speaking, no. It really shouldn't be called isolationism. It's actually called American Non-Interventionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

However, when somebody mentions American isolationism, they are refering to the policy of maintaining neutrality outside of our zone of influence (the Americas) and avoiding entanglement in European affairs. For example, the United States initially attempted to remove itself from the hostilities between Great Britian and France during the Napoleonic Wars. One example of our efforts was the Emargo Act of 1807, which history will tell you failed miserably.

There are three distinct doctrines you're talking about.

The first is staying the fuck out of conflicts between European powers, which is a tradition first formulated by George Washington.

The second is the policy that no colonization or conquest of parts of the Americas by European powers would be tolerated; this is the Monroe Doctrine, formulated - unsurprisingly - by Monroe.

The third tradition is claiming that we have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries in the Americas as the leading light of the New World. This is Manifest Destiny, formulated by Polk, who promptly used it to justify launching the Mexican-American War.

I have to take issue with what the wiki article claims - I'd call the Mexican-American War a rather significant foreign intervention, and that definitely pre-dated the Spanish-American War.

[Xsyne]

The second is the policy that no colonization or conquest of parts of the Americas by European powers would be tolerated; this is the Monroe Doctrine, formulated - unsurprisingly - by Monroe.

John Quincy Adams, actually. Monroe was just president at the time.

[Xsyne]

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.

If by "isn't 100% conclusive" you mean "every single investigation pointed definitively to an internal explosion and in fact determined that the Maine could not have possibly been bombed", then yes.

[Fr33domland]

Ron Paul for President of the United States.

[Death Metal]

Ron Paul for President of the United States.

I shall never bow to the Golden Dictator.

[Fr33domland]

lol. Wtf. How often do you spend waiting for someone to post in the Ron Paul thread?

[The Steel Magnolia]

It's called getting an email notification. Really, it's a wonderful tool.

[Fr33domland]

Nothing better to do?

I just don't get it, Wtf is so good about dictatorship?

[Death Metal]

Actually it was a happy coincidence.

Still, down with Paul! Down with tyranny!

[Death Metal]

Wtf is so good about dictatorship?

Why don't you tell me, you're the one supporting the dictator.

[Fr33domland]

lol down with Ron Paul tyranny.

You'd make great youtube satire for the Paul campaign, you know.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I'm having difficulty understanding "Fr33domland."
Then again, he's a Paulbot. I really shouldn't be surprised, should I?

[Revolutopia]

lol down with Ron Paul tyranny.

You'd make great youtube satire for the Paul campaign, you know.

You know you have never posted one factual or concrete reason anyone should support Prospector Paul.

[Death Metal]

lol down with Ron Paul tyranny.

You'd make great youtube satire for the Paul campaign, you know.

Well, when you're anti-civil rights, anti-privacy, supporting executive privilege to assassinate civilians, anti-judicial review, pro-corrupt government, and supporting religious tests of office... like Ron Paul does?

Yeah, that's a tyrant.