Ron Paul Captures Third Place in Wisconsin!!!

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you are an incredibly busy guy do you know that? Unfortunately for you as you attack in this forum, and on youtube and on other forums we're out flanking you. I consider this hyperinflation, in the 70's my mother made $80 a week and that was considered a good salary. Now $800 a week is barely considered a decent salary. You say me telling others of this is a "scare tactic" no LK it's just simply the truth. David Walker doesn't go around the US telling people we are in severe economic trouble because he's trying to scare them into action, he's simply providing sanity in an insane world.

It was intervention that led to Hitler, and I'm not suggesting Isolationism. I'm suggesting diplomacy and free trade. Neutrality is in our best interest. It's ok LK, relax what you say and do in the forum and others will not affect what's going to happen, we will be a strong nation of peace and prosperity again with or without you.

Ohhh, now we have moved onto the acceptance phase of the recovery, which, according to RPB's, also includes dilusions of grandure.

Ohh noes, 10x inflation over 37 years, that's so fricking "hyper". Sorry, but less than 3% average annual inflation isn't high. Especially when it's been moderated, controlled, and predictable. It's lead to one of the biggest growth periods in this nation's history, or of any country in history. Or stature and wealth is unparalleled, yet somehow, we are a beggar's nation with "hyperinflation" similar to Brazil, argentina, Zimbabwe, and the Wiemar.

Get a fricking clue nutbar.

Intervention lead to hitler? What history book did you read as a kid? Everybody knows that two things lead to hitler. 1. The fact that the allies oppressed the germans with reparations, leading to hyperinflation during the wiemar years. 2. That we didn't lead the charge to rebuild Germany and the Euro States (Unlike Marshall Plan) and didn't take a role in the League of Nations.

Sure, neutrality is in our best interest, but so is looking out for our allies, fighting our enemies, and making sure that the world knows that we don't let our allies stand on their own. Your version of Neutrality lead to 1812.

A strong nation of peace and prosperity "again"? WTF? Are we not the world's largest and most profitable economy by a multiple? You're fricking whacked.

This is why you'll lose, *EVERY*. *DAMN*. *TIME*. Because you use hyperbole and scare tactics. People look around and do see problems, but not to the extent you try to portray. Those problems are cyclical, not long-term. Every time you portray them as long-term you marginalize your position further.

Crazy people refuse to see their problems, just like you refuse to see yours. You call me crazy and the masses crazy, but when everybody in the room thinks you're crazy, isn't it about time to rethink your position?

 

[Mavtek3100]

"1. The fact that the allies oppressed the germans with reparations, leading to hyperinflation during the wiemar years."

Wow, LK just fucking said it, imagine, you admitting that "intervention" lead to hyperinflation which led the people to Hitler. You admit I'm correct and call me a "nutbar" all at the same time...........

Oh and if you don't consider inflation of the dollar as a long term problem then what do you consider it? If in a mere 30-40 years we can have inflation of 1000% what will it be like in another 30 years?

 

[Arkaign]

I think the truth lies in between the views of Ron Paul and of LK. After all, both are human, and fallible. HD-DVD FTW!!! Oh wait ...

I think a less intrusive foreign policy would be a good one.

WW1, we had no business interfering with. The war economies of both the English, French, and Germans were faltering, and the Russians had already pretty much collapsed. A truce was probably imminent, as the lines were pretty stable. By interfering, we extended the war, lost a huge number of men, spent a lot of money, and the Treaty of Versailles made for a convenient platform/excuse for the Nazis to rail against. So, one could just as easily say that overactive foreign policy activity and interference with European matters actually helped create Hitler's power base.

In truth, no one can say with certainty what things would look like under different historical circumstances, but it's interesting to theorize about. All we can do is try to learn from blunders so that they are not repeated so often.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK says Ron is a loon because well it's in his best interest for everyone to continue with the current monetary system of Fiat currency and hyper inflation. It's ok LK you can admit it, others think Ron Paul is a loon because he doesn't want our troops spread out all over the world, well because it's expensive and kinda stupid really. We are the policemen of the world, but that doesn't mean we should be.

Ron Paul's ideas aren't loony it's the world we live in that has become "loony". We "Paultards, Paulites, Paulistas, or now Paulsies" have lost this battle no doubt about it. It's just 1 battle, we are not defeated. I didn't get into this thinking that Ron Paul would be the next president of the United States. I got into this thinking that more people like myself and Ron Paul needed to get involved in the process of our governance. To use an Obama line we can affect change, "yes we can". We have very clear directions now to head from here, this was not a campaign this was a Revolution.

You think this is just 1 battle and you're not defeated? Well, the people who supported Perot thought the same thing and that didn't work out so well. If Ron Paul can't win the Republican nomination in a year when the best they can come up with is McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, he never will.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK says Ron is a loon because well it's in his best interest for everyone to continue with the current monetary system of Fiat currency and hyper inflation. It's ok LK you can admit it, others think Ron Paul is a loon because he doesn't want our troops spread out all over the world, well because it's expensive and kinda stupid really. We are the policemen of the world, but that doesn't mean we should be.

Ron Paul's ideas aren't loony it's the world we live in that has become "loony". We "Paultards, Paulites, Paulistas, or now Paulsies" have lost this battle no doubt about it. It's just 1 battle, we are not defeated. I didn't get into this thinking that Ron Paul would be the next president of the United States. I got into this thinking that more people like myself and Ron Paul needed to get involved in the process of our governance. To use an Obama line we can affect change, "yes we can". We have very clear directions now to head from here, this was not a campaign this was a Revolution.

You think this is just 1 battle and you're not defeated? Well, the people who supported Perot thought the same thing and that didn't work out so well. If Ron Paul can't win the Republican nomination in a year when the best they can come up with is McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, he never will.

I guess America doesn't deserve anything really. They crossed the line of no return when they didn't vote for Paul or realize his ideas at least.

What's looney is McCain saying we can be in Iraq for 100 years if we have to

It's looney that Hilary voted for the Patriot Act, and Voted to call Iran a terrorist state.

Obama is looney for telling us that he voted against the war in Iraq but hasn't done shit since then but say the same garbage over and over.

America is looney, not Ron Paul.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
What's looney is McCain saying we can be in Iraq for 100 years if we have to

when are the troops in South Korea coming home? i haven't heard McCain, Obama or Clintons plan to get the troops out of South Korea after 54 years?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: techs
For a moment I thought it was for real.
Then I saw it was posted by Whoozyerdaddy.

There was something missing here and I couldn't put my finger on it... Then it hit me: We had an election and the forum wasn't overrun by Ron Paul spammers! The universe just seemed so out of balance that I had to do something about it. :laugh:

 

[jman19]

Can't feel the momentum, but I can feel the trolling.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
"1. The fact that the allies oppressed the germans with reparations, leading to hyperinflation during the wiemar years."

Wow, LK just fucking said it, imagine, you admitting that "intervention" lead to hyperinflation which led the people to Hitler. You admit I'm correct and call me a "nutbar" all at the same time...........

Oh and if you don't consider inflation of the dollar as a long term problem then what do you consider it? If in a mere 30-40 years we can have inflation of 1000% what will it be like in another 30 years?

WHAT?

*WITHOUT* our intervention the situation would have been *much* worse.

1. The allies, before the US strongly objected, wanted 10x the reparations.
2. The US floated Germany tons of loans to repay the reparations and keep the Wiemar intact for as long as possible.

Without #1 and #2, the situation would have been far worse. Without our participation in WW1 and the aftermath, Hitler's rise would have been the same, while German hardship would have been worse.

However, if we had been much more involved, we probably could have prevented Hitler.

The inflation had nothing to do with our intervention, but would have been prevented with our further intervention.

I have no problem with those inflation numbers over the long-run. Long-term predictable inflation is not the enemy. Short-term uncontrolled inflation is. Why don't you understand that?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
What's looney is McCain saying we can be in Iraq for 100 years if we have to

when are the troops in South Korea coming home? i haven't heard McCain, Obama or Clintons plan to get the troops out of South Korea after 54 years?

South Korea is a walk in the park, a functioning Westernized nation where the odds of you firing on someone or being fired upon are much much less than in almost any US urban center.

Iraq is a twisted, burning, pile of broken shit. It's not going to get better, because the arbitrary boundaries of the 'country' contain 3 distinct groups who all hate each other enough to kill for that hate. Unless Iraq is split into three self-governing states (which Turkey doesn't want, and may cause war over), I don't really see an end to the violence.

So 100 years of Iraqi occupation = tens of thousands of dead soldiers, hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilian casualties.

Unless things drastically improve.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I think the truth lies in between the views of Ron Paul and of LK. After all, both are human, and fallible. HD-DVD FTW!!! Oh wait ...

I think a less intrusive foreign policy would be a good one.

WW1, we had no business interfering with. The war economies of both the English, French, and Germans were faltering, and the Russians had already pretty much collapsed. A truce was probably imminent, as the lines were pretty stable. By interfering, we extended the war, lost a huge number of men, spent a lot of money, and the Treaty of Versailles made for a convenient platform/excuse for the Nazis to rail against. So, one could just as easily say that overactive foreign policy activity and interference with European matters actually helped create Hitler's power base.

In truth, no one can say with certainty what things would look like under different historical circumstances, but it's interesting to theorize about. All we can do is try to learn from blunders so that they are not repeated so often.

Even if you exclude our inclusion into WW1, the Treaty of Versailles would have been much more onerous and oppressive against the German people. Our inclusion into the war had no impact on making Versailles worse, or the situation worse in any respect. Basically, we gained nothing by going in, lost nothing, but then had to fight another war because we withdrew right afterwards. Had we stayed in and lead the charge to rebuild all of europe, we most likely would have prevented WW2.

I would agree that we should reduce some exposures, but not nearly to the extent the gold idolator wants.

As far as HD DVD, all I underestimated was how much money Sony was willing to lose to "win".

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
"1. The fact that the allies oppressed the germans with reparations, leading to hyperinflation during the wiemar years."

Wow, LK just fucking said it, imagine, you admitting that "intervention" lead to hyperinflation which led the people to Hitler. You admit I'm correct and call me a "nutbar" all at the same time...........

Oh and if you don't consider inflation of the dollar as a long term problem then what do you consider it? If in a mere 30-40 years we can have inflation of 1000% what will it be like in another 30 years?

WHAT?

*WITHOUT* our intervention the situation would have been *much* worse.

1. The allies, before the US strongly objected, wanted 10x the reparations.
2. The US floated Germany tons of loans to repay the reparations and keep the Wiemar intact for as long as possible.

Without #1 and #2, the situation would have been far worse. Without our participation in WW1 and the aftermath, Hitler's rise would have been the same, while German hardship would have been worse.

However, if we had been much more involved, we probably could have prevented Hitler.

The inflation had nothing to do with our intervention, but would have been prevented with our further intervention.

I have no problem with those inflation numbers over the long-run. Long-term predictable inflation is not the enemy. Short-term uncontrolled inflation is. Why don't you understand that?

While I respect your opinion of alternative history, I have a very hard time believing that Hitler would have risen post WW1 if we hadn't intervened.

WW1 without the USA = a draw. England/France had no real chance of breaking the German lines without the fresh and powerful thrust of pressure from the Americans. A draw wouldn't have enabled victors on either side to demand stratospheric bounty.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
"1. The fact that the allies oppressed the germans with reparations, leading to hyperinflation during the wiemar years."

Wow, LK just fucking said it, imagine, you admitting that "intervention" lead to hyperinflation which led the people to Hitler. You admit I'm correct and call me a "nutbar" all at the same time...........

Oh and if you don't consider inflation of the dollar as a long term problem then what do you consider it? If in a mere 30-40 years we can have inflation of 1000% what will it be like in another 30 years?

WHAT?

*WITHOUT* our intervention the situation would have been *much* worse.

1. The allies, before the US strongly objected, wanted 10x the reparations.
2. The US floated Germany tons of loans to repay the reparations and keep the Wiemar intact for as long as possible.

Without #1 and #2, the situation would have been far worse. Without our participation in WW1 and the aftermath, Hitler's rise would have been the same, while German hardship would have been worse.

However, if we had been much more involved, we probably could have prevented Hitler.

The inflation had nothing to do with our intervention, but would have been prevented with our further intervention.

I have no problem with those inflation numbers over the long-run. Long-term predictable inflation is not the enemy. Short-term uncontrolled inflation is. Why don't you understand that?

While I respect your opinion of alternative history, I have a very hard time believing that Hitler would have risen post WW1 if we hadn't intervened.

WW1 without the USA = a draw. England/France had no real chance of breaking the German lines without the fresh and powerful thrust of pressure from the Americans. A draw wouldn't have enabled victors on either side to demand stratospheric bounty.

Even before we entered the Ottoman was failing, as were the other allied states with Germany. German opinion was faltering, as was their manufacturnig base and technology. Their army was feeling the pressure as younger and younger people were sent to the front.

it was inevitable that Germany would have lost, utterly. Their allies were going away, their people were disillusioned, their military was declining, all the while France and GB were increasing in power.

 

[Arkaign]

Hmm. I seem to have taken part in derailing a parody thread

Here : http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-4097.aspx

Fantastic group of ideas regarding the US intervention in the first world war. For War historians such as myself, it's always a pleasure to think and re-think the scenarios that played out as well as what could have been.

I think there's a wide consensus out there that Germany wouldn't have been broken without the US intervention. This leads to : how do you have a Treaty of Versailles with an unbroken Germany? A cessation to hostility without territorial or economic demands would have been much more likely, as the ability for each side to wage full-scale war was diminishing for each side steadily over time due to attrition and economic circumstances for all involved.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
"1. The fact that the allies oppressed the germans with reparations, leading to hyperinflation during the wiemar years."

Wow, LK just fucking said it, imagine, you admitting that "intervention" lead to hyperinflation which led the people to Hitler. You admit I'm correct and call me a "nutbar" all at the same time...........

Oh and if you don't consider inflation of the dollar as a long term problem then what do you consider it? If in a mere 30-40 years we can have inflation of 1000% what will it be like in another 30 years?

WHAT?

*WITHOUT* our intervention the situation would have been *much* worse.

1. The allies, before the US strongly objected, wanted 10x the reparations.
2. The US floated Germany tons of loans to repay the reparations and keep the Wiemar intact for as long as possible.

Without #1 and #2, the situation would have been far worse. Without our participation in WW1 and the aftermath, Hitler's rise would have been the same, while German hardship would have been worse.

However, if we had been much more involved, we probably could have prevented Hitler.

The inflation had nothing to do with our intervention, but would have been prevented with our further intervention.

I have no problem with those inflation numbers over the long-run. Long-term predictable inflation is not the enemy. Short-term uncontrolled inflation is. Why don't you understand that?

While I respect your opinion of alternative history, I have a very hard time believing that Hitler would have risen post WW1 if we hadn't intervened.

WW1 without the USA = a draw. England/France had no real chance of breaking the German lines without the fresh and powerful thrust of pressure from the Americans. A draw wouldn't have enabled victors on either side to demand stratospheric bounty.

Even before we entered the Ottoman was failing, as were the other allied states with Germany. German opinion was faltering, as was their manufacturnig base and technology. Their army was feeling the pressure as younger and younger people were sent to the front.

it was inevitable that Germany would have lost, utterly. Their allies were going away, their people were disillusioned, their military was declining, all the while France and GB were increasing in power.

You forget also that Russia dropped out, leaving Germany with no worries from the East. This freed up a HUGE number of men and logistical factors, and even opened up the possibility of economic/agricultural activity along those lines.

 

[ScottMac]

This thread was much better as a straight-up parody.

Please take serious discussion to another thread.

I thought the Paulster dropped ... they don't even mention him in the press, on TV, or the radio.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
What's looney is McCain saying we can be in Iraq for 100 years if we have to

when are the troops in South Korea coming home? i haven't heard McCain, Obama or Clintons plan to get the troops out of South Korea after 54 years?

South Korea is a walk in the park, a functioning Westernized nation where the odds of you firing on someone or being fired upon are much much less than in almost any US urban center.

Iraq is a twisted, burning, pile of broken shit. It's not going to get better, because the arbitrary boundaries of the 'country' contain 3 distinct groups who all hate each other enough to kill for that hate. Unless Iraq is split into three self-governing states (which Turkey doesn't want, and may cause war over), I don't really see an end to the violence.

So 100 years of Iraqi occupation = tens of thousands of dead soldiers, hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilian casualties.

Unless things drastically improve.

so what is the plan to get the troops home from south korea , we certainly don't want to keep them over there for 100 years, we only have 46 years to get a plan together and get them out. no one wants troops to be stuck overseas for 100 years

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
What's looney is McCain saying we can be in Iraq for 100 years if we have to

when are the troops in South Korea coming home? i haven't heard McCain, Obama or Clintons plan to get the troops out of South Korea after 54 years?

South Korea is a walk in the park, a functioning Westernized nation where the odds of you firing on someone or being fired upon are much much less than in almost any US urban center.

Iraq is a twisted, burning, pile of broken shit. It's not going to get better, because the arbitrary boundaries of the 'country' contain 3 distinct groups who all hate each other enough to kill for that hate. Unless Iraq is split into three self-governing states (which Turkey doesn't want, and may cause war over), I don't really see an end to the violence.

So 100 years of Iraqi occupation = tens of thousands of dead soldiers, hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilian casualties.

Unless things drastically improve.

so what is the plan to get the troops home from south korea , we certainly don't want to keep them over there for 100 years, we only have 46 years to get a plan together and get them out. no one wants troops to be stuck overseas for 100 years

Ah, I see. Straw-man FTL.

Korea is not a wartime/battlefield environment. Sure, it's somewhat stressful, and there are better places to be, but it's a peaceful place where the presence of US personnel is largely accepted and encouraged. After all, we spend a lot of money there on Korean products.

Iraq is *nothing* like Korea ATM, nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future. My best friend is USAF, and he's been to Korea ONCE. He's already been to Iraq 3 times. In Korea, the largest threat to his life was a madcap taxi driver. In Iraq, at Balad air base, he had to wear body armor and be on guard against Mortar / Small Arms fire at ALL TIMES. A mortar landed ~15m away from him on his last tour, and the damage to his hearing was still evident weeks later. He has known several men who have been killed so far.

Korea was a war, followed by definitive peace. Iraq was an invasion, followed by total victory, followed by continual violence and upheaval. The goals keep changing, the political situation keeps evolving, rising, and falling, and there's no real 'front lines' in Iraq. There are only varying degrees of mortal danger to each passing moment at any location in the country.

Iraq is a lot more like Vietnam than it ever was Korea, but even that comparison is somewhat invalid. The truth is it that we've never encountered a conflict quite like it, as the forces aligned against us have no compunction against death. Quite the opposite, the insurgents and terrorists there have quite a fondness for dying just so they can kill as many of us as possible.

So take your strawman and smoke it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

You forget also that Russia dropped out, leaving Germany with no worries from the East. This freed up a HUGE number of men and logistical factors, and even opened up the possibility of economic/agricultural activity along those lines.

Germany still kept a large amount of troops on the eastern front to protect against a renewed war with russia, so I would hardly say there were "no worries".

As Germany's allies were falling a way I think that over time their base would have crumbled and GB and France would have won. It was only a matter of time, many disagree with me, but I disagree with them. Even without the destitude that resulted after the war due to Versailles, all of europe was going to be hurting in a big way and the problems would have probably happened anyway. The core problems, other than high inflation, the GD, and the economy in general, was that people were still pissed.

Regardless, our increased influence in the world, just by pure economics, makes it so we have to be involved to a much larger extent.

 

[Arkaign]

Well thanks LK, for a well-informed and objective dialogue on subjects that I have remained interested in for decades. Though we disagree somewhat on our theories of alternative military/political history, I am glad that we can discuss such things in a civilized manner

Re : US Global involvement. Yes, I agree it's somewhat necessary, more so than many would wish. I do think that our current level of extension is overzealous and unsustainable. PH has an interesting viewpoint on it that I pretty much agree with, and that is a viewpoint of consolidating our overseas ventures and interests rather than outright dissolving them.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Well thanks LK, for a well-informed and objective dialogue on subjects that I have remained interested in for decades. Though we disagree somewhat on our theories of alternative military/political history, I am glad that we can discuss such things in a civilized manner

Re : US Global involvement. Yes, I agree it's somewhat necessary, more so than many would wish. I do think that our current level of extension is overzealous and unsustainable. PH has an interesting viewpoint on it that I pretty much agree with, and that is a viewpoint of consolidating our overseas ventures and interests rather than outright dissolving them.

Provided I am discussing with people that can actually acknowledge other people's points and bring up valid ones, rather than many-times refuted like I have to deal with RPBs with their conspiracy theories, I will debate rationally. It gets a bit tiring to see RPBs run around the net, get refuted, yet still maket he same claims with added nuttiness.

I certainly agree that we need to rollback in certain areas. I'd like to see us pull out of Europe even more. However, I think the SK and Okinawa presences need to be maintained. Other areas, such as Afghanistan or other ME states need a calming presence there, especially in light of Iranian power. Iraq is a special case, I hate the idea that we are there long-term, but I also hate the idea of leaving a power vacuum for either Iran to conquer, or terrorists to haven. We broke it, we need to fix it. However, we need to have a clear, definitive, and adhered policy for making that happen.

I do not take any extremist viewpoints, I am not the antithesis of RP's positions, as I do not advocate extreme intervention. I take a pragmatic approach which is also fatalistic in some aspects (such as iraq). RPBs don't realize that rational people approach most things this way, thus they alienate themselves by appearing irrational. The ostracization they see, as a result, is not because people are blind, sheep, ignorant, or unknowledgeable, it's because they take that moderated viewpoints.

Populations are nothing but distributions on a bell curve. RPBs are on one tail and are countered by extremists on the other tail. If they moderated themselves a bit and stuck to a few core beliefs, they might actually have a chance at change. However, as long as they are extremists, they will hang out in the tails and be largely irrelevent.

 

[badkarma1399]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The first time it failed was during Jefferson's term, when he thought European problems were European problems, thus we should be able to stay neutral, pull out of the situation, and keep everything isolationist. That failed horribly and led us into the War of 1812.

Yes, clearly the isolationists were to blame. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that we declared war on them.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: badkarma1399

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The first time it failed was during Jefferson's term, when he thought European problems were European problems, thus we should be able to stay neutral, pull out of the situation, and keep everything isolationist. That failed horribly and led us into the War of 1812.

Yes, clearly the isolationists were to blame. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that we declared war on them.

The stage was set long before we declared war. Our "neutral" position and "isolationist" stance created the situation in which the inevitable conclusion was war.

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK you really do have a very backward view on history. In your mind Switzerland is the one to blame for all the wars.........

Your logic is lacking.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you really do have a very backward view on history. In your mind Switzerland is the one to blame for all the wars.........

Your logic is lacking.

Sorry, but if you cannot tell the difference between the situations, then your logic is lacking. That wouldn't be surprising considering your sig line.