• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

For non RP Bots, why is Ron Paul a Loon?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,827
804
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: palehorse74
When RP and his supporters propose an isolationist military strategy, they are essentially saying that they genuinely dont care what happens to innocent people outside of the United States. In other words, most of the world could die tomorrow, or be forced into slavery, and RP supporters just wouldnt give a flying fvck.

seriously.
So, do YOU think the US should be the worlds police? Where's the middle road?
World "police"? no.

I can't necessarily articulate a "middle of the road" either, but I do believe there is one.
I agree with you...I wasnt flaming you :) Unfortunately, I think the middle of the road is to NOT have set rules in place. Each issue must be evaluated case by case. The only problem with that, there will never be 100 or even 90% agreement with those decisions.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Maybe you don't understand the need for, or definition of, global alliances and defense pacts...?
When you're the most powerful nation in the world, you need no entangling alliances or defense pacts. You need no alliances other than trade alliances. When you make friends with one entity, you make an enemy with another.

The American people owe money to no other nation. We should not have to pay our tax dollars to foreign countries in the name of 'aid.'

If we took our entire military and moved it back into the US, our borders would be more secure, the American people would be more secure, and other countries would be free to figure things out for themselves. America should have nothing to do with 'Peace in the Middle East.'

Our foreign policy should be easy to understand:

Leave us alone and we will leave you alone.
If you attack us, then parking lot.
If you disrupt our trade, we will defend against it.
Judging by this insane post and your insane signature I'm pretty well convinced that you're just a parody of a Ron Paul supporter.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
This has turned into a wonderful topic, I love it!

Why? Well lets recap! Ron Paul is crazy because he'd pull our tiny force from South Korea so that surely means North Korea would attack with their aging and obsolete force with little to no financial backing simply because their leader is completely irrational and wants war with the south at all cost! No matter how ridiculous this sounds! I mean lets be realistic, we all do this don't we? I mean if your neighbor has more than you don't you quickly run over, attack, and take all their stuff? You must!

Ron Paul is crazy because he'd greatly change the monetary system, you know the one that took full responsibility for causing "The Great Depression" in 2002. You see Ron Paul actually believes the Federal Reserve is what causes boom then busts economics, as historically hyper inflation and booms and busts weren't really an issue until the invention of central banking. Yes and many respected economists would also like to abolish the Federal Reserve, well because it's a conspiracy....... (bullshit it's just a shitty system) Hell even Bernanke said it was the Fed who facilitated the depression

Since its entire existence was predicated on its mission to prevent events like the Great Depression, it had failed in what the 1913 bill tried to enact.[39] This is also the current conventional wisdom on the matter, as both Ben Bernanke and other economists such as the late John Kenneth Galbraith--the latter being an ardent Keynesian--have upheld this reasoning. Friedman also said that ideally he would "prefer to abolish the federal reserve system altogether" rather than try to reform it, because it was a flawed system in the first place.[40] He later said he would like to "abolish the Federal Reserve and replace it with a computer", meaning that it would be a mechanical system in nature that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate. Friedman also believed that, ideally, the issuing power of money should rest with the Government instead of private banks issuing money through fractional reserve lending.[41]

Ben Bernanke agreed that the Fed had made the Great Depression worse, saying in a 2002 speech: "I would like to say to Milton [Friedman] and Anna [J. Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."[42][43]

Friedman also alleged that the Fed caused the high inflation of the 1970s. When asked about the greatest economic problem of the day, he said the most pressing was how to get rid of the Federal Reserve.[39]


The other argument is that we should be the world's police, yet where does one get this argument and at what leg of logic does it stand on? Ron Paul says we shouldn't be the world police and I agree with him, what gives us the divine authority to be the Police of this earth? Does it say somewhere in the bible that it's our job? (not a Christian, just trying to apply this rational to logic and it isn't working so I thought I'd try faith).

Yes it seems very crazy to me in fact that some here have stated that it isn't 1800 anymore, as if this has anything to do with our foreign policy, we must protect our interests around the world. Our interests? Huhm, is this like we need to go into Iraq to protect "our" oil? Is that what many believe? That somehow foreign resources are entitled to Americans, well because we are America?

Yet here is this loony guy Ron Paul telling society it's wrong. Above all else this is why I love Ron Paul, he recognizes that it's not the individual who is "wrong" it's society. He recognizes that liberty is not about society, it is about the individual. Ron Paul stands up to the world and says you're wrong, that's just ballsy as hell. Ron Paul stands up for the individual who should be free to choose what he or she does regardless of what "society" tells him or her is wrong. Something I tell my wife all the time, facts are mathematical and logical, facts don't become true because a bunch of people say they are.
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
So...the point of this thread had nothing to do with you actually learning about opposition to Ron Paul...it was so that you could attempt to rep for RP?

I don't think he's a loon, but I'm certainly not going to be voting for him.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,827
804
126
Originally posted by: teclis1023
So...the point of this thread had nothing to do with you actually learning about opposition to Ron Paul...it was so that you could attempt to rep for RP?

I don't think he's a loon, but I'm certainly not going to be voting for him.
Neither are the electors...whose vote actually matters.

 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: teclis1023
So...the point of this thread had nothing to do with you actually learning about opposition to Ron Paul...it was so that you could attempt to rep for RP?

I don't think he's a loon, but I'm certainly not going to be voting for him.
Nope, I don't rep for Ron Paul, I expect everyone to make their own decisions. I explained why I support him, I don't care who you support or don't. I just love to hear the reasoning behind him being a Loon, and as I thought it was because our "society" believes 1 way while Paul believes another and for one to think differently is for sure looney :)
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: teclis1023
So...the point of this thread had nothing to do with you actually learning about opposition to Ron Paul...it was so that you could attempt to rep for RP?

I don't think he's a loon, but I'm certainly not going to be voting for him.
Neither are the electors...whose vote actually matters.
Yeh, I'm not a big fan of that system.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
The ROK Air Force (ROKAF) is a modern air force, which fields some 600+ combat aircraft of American design. In contrast, the North Korean Army has roughly 150-300 more aircraft, but mostly obsolete types of Soviet and Chinese origin.

For those who don't like to click links.
As of 2007, North Korea's airforce comprises about 1,200 - 1500 aircraft and 110,000 personnel, about twice the number of aircraft as the South, though the operational status of many of these aircraft is unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...ple%27s_Army_Air_Force

For those who like selective research.

You also obviously don't want to acknowledge the fact that N Korea's active army is almost twice the size of S Korea's.

You got called on your bullshit. Man up and admit it.
The size of an army doesn't mean diddley. Israel has a 6th the active duty that KN has, and I'd put money on it that Israel would wipe the floor with North Korea.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
If the definition of a loon is someone who has ideas that no one else agrees with then he certainly is one.

See? lots of people talk about privatizing social security, you may not agree with the idea, but calling someone who does a loon would be going over board.
Lots of people think Universal Healthcare is a good idea, lots of people don?t, but I wouldn?t call people loons for supporting or opposing the idea.

Now look at two of Paul?s big ideas. No one else is talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve, NO ONE. Same with bringing all US troops home, again he is out there on his own. If his ideas had any real merit there would be others out there talking about those ideas, but there aren?t. Which tells you a lot about Paul and his ideas. He is a fringe kook candidate who is pushing his utopian ideas on a bunch of foolish people who are to young to know better.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohnNow look at two of Paul?s big ideas. No one else is talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve, NO ONE. Same with bringing all US troops home, again he is out there on his own. If his ideas had any real merit there would be others out there talking about those ideas, but there aren?t. Which tells you a lot about Paul and his ideas. He is a fringe kook candidate who is pushing his utopian ideas on a bunch of foolish people who are to young to know better.
There's a lot of people that agree with him, the people on the boobtube not talking about it all feed from the same trough, so no, they don't like the ideas. Removing all military personnel from abroad is not a great idea, but having personally seen a ridiculous amount of useless spending in action, and the insane amount of waste in Iraq, I believe there is a good middle ground.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
The size of an army doesn't mean diddley. Israel has a 6th the active duty that KN has, and I'd put money on it that Israel would wipe the floor with North Korea.
I expect that South Korea would wipe the floor with North Korea as well. The problem is that in the first few hours of a conflict thousands of South Koreans would die via the NK artillery bombardment of Seoul.

Of course nothing is certain in war. We thought a battle in Europe (WW3) would be a long drawn out bloody affair and then we learned in Gulf War 1 that the Soviet built tanks and equipment sucked even more than we thought it would.

BTW I don't think we need multiple thousands of troops in South Korea anymore. A few thousand would be enough to act as a symbolic "you attack them then you attack us" type of gesture.
 

uli2000

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2006
1,257
0
71
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
There are very valid reasons for having troops and equipment staged throughout the world -- reasons that RP seems to ignore in favor of saving a few dollars.

Bringing everyone home would have severe and dire consequences to the security of the US and many other nations around the world (ie. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind).

Also, unless he plans to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, bringing all of them home wouldn't do a damn thing to bolster border security. Do you want to see armed US soldiers patrolling our borders and streets? Yikes!

I think you and RP need to take an introduction class in military strategery...
My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea. Are you saying the south would invade and dominate the North if we weren't there? Would this be a bad thing? As far as Taiwan goes you're basically saying our 20,000 troops we have there is a deterrent for the Chinese 3 million man army?

Who is the loon again? God damn I had no idea how much fun this would be!
you dont understand North Korea. 3 million brainwashed, starving solders can do a hell of a lot of damage.

 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
This has turned into a wonderful topic, I love it!

Why? Well lets recap! Ron Paul is crazy because he'd pull our tiny force from South Korea so that surely means North Korea would attack with their aging and obsolete force with little to no financial backing simply because their leader is completely irrational and wants war with the south at all cost! No matter how ridiculous this sounds! I mean lets be realistic, we all do this don't we? I mean if your neighbor has more than you don't you quickly run over, attack, and take all their stuff? You must!

The other argument is that we should be the world's police, yet where does one get this argument and at what leg of logic does it stand on? Ron Paul says we shouldn't be the world police and I agree with him, what gives us the divine authority to be the Police of this earth? Does it say somewhere in the bible that it's our job? (not a Christian, just trying to apply this rational to logic and it isn't working so I thought I'd try faith).

Yes it seems very crazy to me in fact that some here have stated that it isn't 1800 anymore, as if this has anything to do with our foreign policy, we must protect our interests around the world. Our interests? Huhm, is this like we need to go into Iraq to protect "our" oil? Is that what many believe? That somehow foreign resources are entitled to Americans, well because we are America?
Are you aware of just how pants on head crazy North Korea is? Well, you obviously aren't, which is why people have to explain simple things to you, but here is a glimpse. This is a country that is so poor that most of the country is starving to better feed a military, has no concept of the outside world and is run by a guy who looks like Elvis.

Do you know why we took on the role of taking a larger interest in foreign affairs? There was things event called WW2, where we found out that being isolationist doesn't help things anymore. Its not the 1800's and we can't just sit on our nation between oceans hope the bad things go away. The world is a lot smaller now.

Are you aware what interests are? It is our nation's interest that we have a stable supply of fuel coming into our country. Or we trade with nations that are also stable and can pay us. Or our trade partners are not being threatened by other larger countries. It is in our interest to have a stable planet, its good for business. Note, this does not excuse the Iraq war at all.

You see Ron Paul actually believes the Federal Reserve is what causes boom then busts economics, as historically hyper inflation and booms and busts weren't really an issue until the invention of central banking.
That is such unbelievable bullshit that I'm surprised the text didn't turn brown when it was typed. Take a look at our economy past the Great Depression. How many boom/bust swings have there been? The Fed removed the boom/bust swing and replaced it with stability, which is much more important then having a huge growth spurt.

When you write that garbage then follow with:
Something I tell my wife all the time, facts are mathematical and logical, facts don't become true because a bunch of people say they are.
So why are you making up things and quoting them as facts?
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
When RP and his supporters propose an isolationist military strategy, they are essentially saying that they genuinely dont care what happens to innocent people outside of the United States. In other words, most of the world could die tomorrow, or be forced into slavery, and RP supporters just wouldnt give a flying fvck.

seriously.
It's not that I don't care, it's that I don't feel like the entire world is our fuck to give. You must pick and choose your flying fucks to give wisely. Otherwise your flying fucks will be deluted too much to be worth a flying fuck and your own ability to give a flying fuck about yourself will be at the willingness of other nations to give a flying fuck.

To assume everyone else needs our help is to assume everyone else is helpless without us.
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
There are very valid reasons for having troops and equipment staged throughout the world -- reasons that RP seems to ignore in favor of saving a few dollars.

Bringing everyone home would have severe and dire consequences to the security of the US and many other nations around the world (ie. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind).

Also, unless he plans to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, bringing all of them home wouldn't do a damn thing to bolster border security. Do you want to see armed US soldiers patrolling our borders and streets? Yikes!

I think you and RP need to take an introduction class in military strategery...
I would not mind armed soldiers patrolling our borders. I've heard too many stories of border agents being outgunned by drug cartels and having to turn back.

 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
CitizenKain's post is so incredibly (oh I'll just not say to be nice) I'm not even sure where to start other than if that's what people really think then we are in a hell of a lot more trouble than I ever thought we were.

I'll start with no boom-busts since the big busts called a depression. Ugh..... Well 1st there was a boom then there was the depression and as I already pointed out and as even Ben Bernanke has admitted the depression was indeed the fault of the Federal Reserve. Milton Friedman and the worlds leading economists all agree, the Fed was the leading cause of the Depression. I digress, so what you are saying the great "Boom" of the 1950's didn't happen. You know the "Baby boom"? I guess you don't realize that was a financial "boom" as well? Then of course you had the oil crisis in the mid 70's I guess you're saying that wasn't a "bust". Then directly after that you had a boom then in the mid 80's you had another bust with the savings and loan shake up. Then we boomed again and yet one more time during G H Bush we had another bust. After that small bust Clinton balanced the budget and technology got cool for everyone and we had a boom and of course in 01 we had a big bust. Now we have a boom for a very long time with the wonderful Fed providing such unbelievably candified rates for every bank who is FDIC insured gets damn near free money, all in the name of stimulating the boom.

Now of course we're going to have a nice big bust on our hands, oh boy. Yep I see what you're saying, no boom-busts since the depression.... UGH

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head too..... Wow..... Maybe you're just in denial.

Moving on how pants on head crazy North Korea is. Well to be honest we have crazy all over the place and it looks to most I think even here that if N Korea did go bat shit crazy S Korea could probably handle them. If not it's not like we can't provide aid to them.

Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the definition of a loon is someone who has ideas that no one else agrees with then he certainly is one.

See? lots of people talk about privatizing social security, you may not agree with the idea, but calling someone who does a loon would be going over board.
Lots of people think Universal Healthcare is a good idea, lots of people don?t, but I wouldn?t call people loons for supporting or opposing the idea.

Now look at two of Paul?s big ideas. No one else is talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve, NO ONE. Same with bringing all US troops home, again he is out there on his own. If his ideas had any real merit there would be others out there talking about those ideas, but there aren?t. Which tells you a lot about Paul and his ideas. He is a fringe kook candidate who is pushing his utopian ideas on a bunch of foolish people who are to young to know better.
Abolishing the Fed isn't a new or crazy idea. Renowned economist Milton Friedman often stated he would abolish the Fed. I've already shown that though. As far as military all over the world, well soon you'll see we just can't afford that crazy shit.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the definition of a loon is someone who has ideas that no one else agrees with then he certainly is one.

See? lots of people talk about privatizing social security, you may not agree with the idea, but calling someone who does a loon would be going over board.
Lots of people think Universal Healthcare is a good idea, lots of people don?t, but I wouldn?t call people loons for supporting or opposing the idea.

Now look at two of Paul?s big ideas. No one else is talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve, NO ONE. Same with bringing all US troops home, again he is out there on his own. If his ideas had any real merit there would be others out there talking about those ideas, but there aren?t. Which tells you a lot about Paul and his ideas. He is a fringe kook candidate who is pushing his utopian ideas on a bunch of foolish people who are to young to know better.
Abolishing the Fed isn't a new or crazy idea. Renowned economist Milton Friedman often stated he would abolish the Fed. I've already shown that though. As far as military all over the world, well soon you'll see we just can't afford that crazy shit.
This is your major problem. You think the world is defined by an opinion or a group of opinions, when, in fact, it's defined by the reality of the situation. People's opinions are diverse and along a distribution. However, reality is a working form of fact, not opinion. To somebody that works inside the financial markets I know that keeping the Fed is a necessity of fact, not opinion.

Every time somebody brings up information to counter that fact, I am able to shoot it down because they cannot definitively prove the Fed is evil or needs to be eliminated.

As I have repeatedly stated, the Fed's job is difficult. It can't control Congress nor the President. As such it is unable to control two key parties in major situations. The precursor to the GD happened due to reasons outside the Fed's control. It tried to manage the situation, in hindsight this management was poor. Economics is still an art, not a science. Nobody would have thought we would have raising inflation, a flagging economy, and the absolute need to drop rates to prevent a massive sudden and violent correction. If anything rates should be raised, but that would absolutely kill the economy. It's a strange situation.

People need to also check their facts on the GD. Fiat currency countries, on average, started to recover from the GD much faster than non-fiat based countries, even excluding WW2.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Personally the idea of ending jus soli scared me, because it would require a consitutional amendment.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
There are very valid reasons for having troops and equipment staged throughout the world -- reasons that RP seems to ignore in favor of saving a few dollars.

Bringing everyone home would have severe and dire consequences to the security of the US and many other nations around the world (ie. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind).

Also, unless he plans to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, bringing all of them home wouldn't do a damn thing to bolster border security. Do you want to see armed US soldiers patrolling our borders and streets? Yikes!

I think you and RP need to take an introduction class in military strategery...
My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea. Are you saying the south would invade and dominate the North if we weren't there? Would this be a bad thing? As far as Taiwan goes you're basically saying our 20,000 troops we have there is a deterrent for the Chinese 3 million man army?

Who is the loon again? God damn I had no idea how much fun this would be!

Yes, our 20,000 troops are a deterrent to China. Because it they attacked and killed them, we would retaliate and the world would respond to their aggression against a democratic state. The same is true in South Korea. North Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world.

If you don't think North Korea invading South Korea would be a bad thing, I suggest you take a look at this photo.

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-night.html

The military maintains a worldwide presence and infrastructure so that they can respond to a hotspot within 24 hours. You cannot build infrastructure overnight. And like it or not, it DOES matter what happens to the rest of the world. We rely on them for fuel and for trade. You cannot stick your head in the mud and pretend the problems of the world will go away if we start ignoring them. Look what happened with Hitler's rise to power.

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.
Mavtek, my first reaction here is to rip your head off and scream and yell and call you names. Now that I've calmed down, here's my point:

The United States was attacked December 7, 1941 by Japan. If you examine sentiment in the US following the attack it would have been highly unlikely that Roosevelt (who wanted to go to war with Germany, too) would have received a declaration of war against the Germans IF the Germans hadn't declared war on the United States first.

Pre-WW2: The United States helped broker the peace after World War I and the Versailles Treaty certainly didn't make the prospects of peace good. The main reason, however, Germany was willing to wage war again in 1939 was because they had not received what they desired - security. Germany had two major enemies bordering her - Russia and France. Her only ally, Austria-Hungary, collapsed in a wave of nationalism immediately after the war. That left Germany without a Great Power ally. It was US non-interventionism that created the environment for Hitler to rise to power and it was the United States', France's, and England's complicity that allowed Hitler to even wage a war in 1939.

As for the post-WW2 period: US interventionism was at an all-time high. We were heavily invested in Europe. We waged a war in Korea, Vietnam, and sent $500 million to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. We almost had a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. How can you even begin to say that non-interventionism has been a cornerstone of US policy?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
I like how OP separates us in to "RP Bots" and "Non RP Bots" :laugh:

Most here are quite sane, even the liberals. But Paulbots, on the other hand...
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'll start with no boom-busts since the big busts called a depression. Ugh..... Well 1st there was a boom then there was the depression and as I already pointed out and as even Ben Bernanke has admitted the depression was indeed the fault of the Federal Reserve. Milton Friedman and the worlds leading economists all agree, the Fed was the leading cause of the Depression. I digress, so what you are saying the great "Boom" of the 1950's didn't happen. You know the "Baby boom"? I guess you don't realize that was a financial "boom" as well? Then of course you had the oil crisis in the mid 70's I guess you're saying that wasn't a "bust". Then directly after that you had a boom then in the mid 80's you had another bust with the savings and loan shake up. Then we boomed again and yet one more time during G H Bush we had another bust. After that small bust Clinton balanced the budget and technology got cool for everyone and we had a boom and of course in 01 we had a big bust. Now we have a boom for a very long time with the wonderful Fed providing such unbelievably candified rates for every bank who is FDIC insured gets damn near free money, all in the name of stimulating the boom.
Now of course we're going to have a nice big bust on our hands, oh boy. Yep I see what you're saying, no boom-busts since the depression.... UGH
Lets look at actual busts, ones that devastated the country for years.
Lets start with:
Panic of 1819
Black Friday 1869
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1907

Those are boom / bust cycles.


Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.
When the point goes sailing over your head, do you wave it as it goes by?
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
I love how the OP comes in asking for honest opinions from non-bots, then proceeds to expose himself as an RP-bot. Classic. As such, I'm not touching this with a 50 foot pole; you can make the most convincing argument in the world for why we need the federal reserve, or that taxes aren't always bad, or that we need to have a presence outside our own borders in an increasingly global economy, and a Ron Paul supporter will stick his fingers in his ears and scream "I can't hear you, now prove I'm wrong! You can't do it!" like a goddamned idiot. I mean, holy hell, the OP is posting links that contradict the very point he's trying to make (North Korea has a larger army than South Korea according to wikipedia), and then he completely ignores it. It's pointless to argue; we can sit back comfortably, democrat or republican, confident that come January 2009, Ron Paul won't be moving into the White House. So instead of rehashing the same tired argument that's been refuted time and time again, I'll point out something else:

Originally posted by: palehorse74
1) "strategery" was a verbal gaff GWB made many years ago. You must have been living in a cave to have missed it... did you used to live in a cave? Or maybe you're a recent HS graduate who just discovered politics? :Q
You know, I love to rag on Bush as much as the next guy (actually, considerably more), but I must give credit where credit is due; George Bush did not say strategery. The word actually came about from a sketch on Saturday Night Live where Will Ferrell was playing Bush in the days leading up to the Bush v. Gore election. Apparently, Bush later did use the word, but it was assumed to be an intentional reference to the sketch. Wikipedia has way too much random shit on it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,346
9,080
126
I don't think RP is a loon so much as I think that many of his disciples are loons.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY