Ron Paul Retires from Congress

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Ending unnecessary wars is a grand experiment now? What a world.

No, Ron Paul being president is the experiment I am referring to.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No, Ron Paul being president is the experiment I am referring to.

Oh, well in that case I guess you can tell me. 6 million jobs have been lost under Obama. What has that done to the great experiment of electing him?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Oh, well in that case I guess you can tell me. 6 million jobs have been lost under Obama. What has that done to the great experiment of electing him?

He wasn't an experiment. He is more mainstream than Paul. Electing Paul would be an experiment.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He wasn't an experiment.

First black president, that's something new.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He is more mainstream than Paul. Electing Paul would be an experiment.

Another white guy who thinks the government should stay out of other people's business, back our money with gold, and that the Fed is bad. Hmm, Jefferson, Addams, Van Buren come to mind. Actually, the majority of our early presidents up through the civil war. Yes, what a crazy experiment that would be. Completely new.

[David]

Originally Posted by stolz25

First black president, that's something new.



Another white guy who thinks the government should stay out of other people's business, back our money with gold, and that the Fed is bad. Hmm, Jefferson, Addams, Van Buren come to mind. Actually, the majority of our early presidents up through the civil war. Yes, what a crazy experiment that would be. Completely new.

Millions enslaved, widespread poverty, massive wealth gap, the Great Depression (the 1st 1) and genocide. Ya, it worked out so well the last time.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by stolz25

First black president, that's something new.



Another white guy who thinks the government should stay out of other people's business, back our money with gold, and that the Fed is bad. Hmm, Jefferson, Addams, Van Buren come to mind. Actually, the majority of our early presidents up through the civil war. Yes, what a crazy experiment that would be. Completely new.

Guess what? Those that you want to compare him to were mainstream in their time....they are not now. There's a reason society moved away from them...it's called "maturing."

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by David

Millions enslaved, widespread poverty, massive wealth gap, the Great Depression (the 1st 1) and genocide. Ya, it worked out so well the last time.

Yeah, you're right, had they had different presidents that stuff probably never would have happened. Oh wait, slavery, poverty, the wealth gap and genocide were all a problem in the are before the US even became a country, much less elected their first presidents.

And as for the Depression, I assume you mean the panic of 1893. Protectionist trade policies, overbuilding the railroads (mostly because of government programs) and bi-metalism were the major causes, all of which were (at the time) quite liberal policies.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Guess what? Those that you want to compare him to were mainstream in their time....they are not now.

And? What does this have to do with Ron Paul supposedly being an experiment?

Originally Posted by Donkey®

There's a reason society moved away from them...it's called "maturing."

Guess that's one word for it. Though I imagine if you asked any society in the history of the world they'd think they were the most enlightened people ever to have existed, right up to collapse.

And being able to vote to get other people's stuff is hardly new, that's been around as long as democracy.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. " - Alexander Tyler

But you're right, it's probably maturing, not progressing to bondage.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by stolz25

And? What does this have to do with Ron Paul supposedly being an experiment?

Nothing. You don't get it so you don't get it.

Originally Posted by stolz25

Guess that's one word for it. Though I imagine if you asked any society in the history of the world they'd think they were the most enlightened people ever to have existed, right up to collapse.

And being able to vote to get other people's stuff is hardly new, that's been around as long as democracy.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. " - Alexander Tyler

But you're right, it's probably maturing, not progressing to bondage.

Bondage...

You know, since you refuse to move out of this country in order to avoid the hell you claim it is...I have a new solution for you...go back in time so you can coddle the balls of those so called "enlightened" men you seem to be uncannily drawn to.

If you are stupid enough to claim the society of then is better than the one of today...I feel sorry for you.

[David]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Yeah, you're right, had they had different presidents that stuff probably never would have happened. Oh wait, slavery, poverty, the wealth gap and genocide were all a problem in the are before the US even became a country, much less elected their first presidents.

And as for the Depression, I assume you mean the panic of 1893. Protectionist trade policies, overbuilding the railroads (mostly because of government programs) and bi-metalism were the major causes, all of which were (at the time) quite liberal policies.

You're the 1 trying to spin it like America was doing fine back when libertarian policies were mainstream, I was simply responding to your own argument.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by David

You're the 1 trying to spin it like America was doing fine back when libertarian policies were mainstream, I was simply responding to your own argument.

That's not what he was saying at all

[David]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

That's not what he was saying at all

Donkey was saying Paul would be an experiment and he countered that he wouldn't be because we already had presidents like him and the country did just fine. I pointed out the country sucked. He then said it wouldn't have mattered who was president at the time which invalidates his original point.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

You know, since you refuse to move out of this country in order to avoid the hell you claim it is...I have a new solution for you...go back in time so you can coddle the balls of those so called "enlightened" men you seem to be uncannily drawn to.

That's reasonable.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If you are stupid enough to claim the society of then is better than the one of today...I feel sorry for you.

It's not an either or choice. Believing in limited government, personal freedom and slavery are hardly a package. In fact, they contradict each other.

Many parts of that society was better than today. However, the argument that they supported slavery so everything they did was worse is so horrendously stupid it's funny.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by David

You're the 1 trying to spin it like America was doing fine back when libertarian policies were mainstream, I was simply responding to your own argument.

You picked out problems that were around long before those libertarian policies (if you wish to call them that) were put into place. And one problem that was caused largely because those libertarian policies were on their way out. Good job.

And then, of course, as was already said, I didn't spin anything. I merely pointed out that Paul's views are hardly new to the US, and not the great experiment that he is making them out to be.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by David

I pointed out the country sucked. He then said it wouldn't have mattered who was president at the time which invalidates his original point.

The issues you pointed out weren't solved (for the ones that actually were improved) by presidents. It certainly does matter who is president, just not for the reasons you picked out.

Here is an example:

FDR sucked because there was massive amount of rampant poverty throughout the midwest from 1930-1936.

Now, while the massive poverty throughout the midwest was true, this was caused by the dust bowl. Any president was going to have a problem with the dust bowl, and it's not FDR's fault it happened. FDR sucked for entirely different reasons.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by stolz25

It's not an either or choice. Believing in limited government, personal freedom and slavery are hardly a package. In fact, they contradict each other.

Many parts of that society was better than today. However, the argument that they supported slavery so everything they did was worse is so horrendously stupid it's funny.

There was more than just "slavery" though. I also didn't say it invalidated everything good about that society. Let's just do a basic list.

1: Slavery - bad
2: Women's rights - bad
3: Voting rights - bad


And really...what's more important in your shangri-la of small government and liberty than the right of every citizen to simply vote?

So sure...society back then was fantastic for those privledged while males with money.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

There was more than just "slavery" though. I also didn't say it invalidated everything good about that society. Let's just do a basic list.

1: Slavery - bad
2: Women's rights - bad
3: Voting rights - bad


And really...what's more important in your shangri-la of small government and liberty than the right of every citizen to simply vote?

So sure...society back then was fantastic for those privledged (sic) while males with money.

None of the things you just listed is part of the libertarian policy.

So, you don't like the politics of Ron Paul.

First try - his politics are new and radical, it would be some great experiment to elect him.

False - many of the previous presidents had the same political views about foreign policy, central banks and monetary policy.

So now that that's established you are attempting to condemn him based on politics they had that Ron Paul doesn't agree with?

I'll agree that when the founders said freedom for all they didn't really mean it, but that doesn't make freedom for all a bad idea.

Nor do the few things you constantly harp on about the early US have anything to do with central bank or monetary policy. Maybe we need a new Godwin's law. How about any time anyone mentions anything about a president before Lincoln, Donkey will bring up slavery, no matter how unrelated it is to the subject.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by stolz25

None of the things you just listed is part of the libertarian policy.

So they've never been in power? But you just said Ron Paul wouldn't be the first...therefore...wouldn't be an experiment? Which is it?

Originally Posted by stolz25

So, you don't like the politics of Ron Paul.

I like some of what he wants...I dislike a lot of it. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Also, on top of that...put him in office and he accomplishes NOTHING. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. Congress would laugh at him out in the open whenever he tried to get any of his ideas passed. What is the point of this?

Originally Posted by stolz25

First try - his politics are new and radical, it would be some great experiment to elect him.

False - many of the previous presidents had the same political views about foreign policy, central banks and monetary policy.

Now you're once again saying that there WERE previous presidents with libertarian fundamentals in their policies...yet they ignored slavery...women...voting rights...etc? How many of those presidents reeled in the empire? You're all over the map here.

Originally Posted by stolz25

So now that that's established you are attempting to condemn him based on politics they had that Ron Paul doesn't agree with?

What are you arguing here? Either he is like them or he isn't...if he is, then they weren't that good...if he isn't...then he's an experiment. Please make up your mind.

Originally Posted by stolz25

I'll agree that when the founders said freedom for all they didn't really mean it, but that doesn't make freedom for all a bad idea.

Ok...Ron Paul wants freedom for all...good? That isn't in debate here.

Originally Posted by stolz25

Nor do the few things you constantly harp on about the early US have anything to do with central bank or monetary policy. Maybe we need a new Godwin's law. How about any time anyone mentions anything about a president before Lincoln, Donkey will bring up slavery, no matter how unrelated it is to the subject.

Or maybe we need a pair of glasses for you because you brought up slavery way before I did.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So they've never been in power? But you just said Ron Paul wouldn't be the first...therefore...wouldn't be an experiment? Which is it?

He wouldn't be the first because he is running as a republican. And if you mean a libertarian leaning president, still not the first.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I like some of what he wants...I dislike a lot of it. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Also, on top of that...put him in office and he accomplishes NOTHING. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. Congress would laugh at him out in the open whenever he tried to get any of his ideas passed. What is the point of this?

You are the one who decided to start an argument about a lack of wars leading to unemployment. And that congress would laugh at his ideas says more about congress (and you for that matter) than it does about Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Now you're once again saying that there WERE previous presidents with libertarian fundamentals in their policies...yet they ignored slavery...women...voting rights...etc? How many of those presidents reeled in the empire? You're all over the map here.

The views you called Ron Paul radical about have already existed in the White House. Hardly new. Slavery, women's rights and voting rights his views are quite mainstream today (which you said made Obama not an experiment). Unless of course you mean a president with exactly Ron Paul's views, but then every president is an experiment in that case.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What are you arguing here? Either he is like them or he isn't...if he is, then they weren't that good...if he isn't...then he's an experiment. Please make up your mind.

Hilarious. I guess when all fails eh?

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Or maybe we need a pair of glasses for you because you brought up slavery way before I did.

Mine was in response to David, who opened up with it, but congrats on lasting longer than him.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by stolz25

He wouldn't be the first because he is running as a republican. And if you mean a libertarian leaning president, still not the first.

Whatever you say. Sorry my opinion doesn't jive with your belief in the savior.

Originally Posted by stolz25

You are the one who decided to start an argument about a lack of wars leading to unemployment. And that congress would laugh at his ideas says more about congress (and you for that matter) than it does about Ron Paul.

I wasn't arguing. I merely stated a fact after you seemed to not notice it would have an effect. I am with him on ending the wars and closing bases...you didn't ask that though did you?

Originally Posted by stolz25

The views you called Ron Paul radical about have already existed in the White House. Hardly new. Slavery, women's rights and voting rights his views are quite mainstream today (which you said made Obama not an experiment). Unless of course you mean a president with exactly Ron Paul's views, but then every president is an experiment in that case.

Yes, why would I say it otherwise? And no...his views aren't just another president in a long line of presidents. Their views have been mainstream...his aren't. I have no idea why you're arguing such a stupid point. The REASON you like him is BECAUSE he's singular.

Originally Posted by stolz25

Hilarious. I guess when all fails eh?

Whatever...you've failed countless times and yet you keep persisting on stupid arguments.

Originally Posted by stolz25

Mine was in response to David, who opened up with it, but congrats on lasting longer than him.

Yes, by all means, disparage me then don't apologize...I've come to expect it.