Ron Paul on Principal

[Guiscard]

I have no idea what you're blabbering about, Nappy. You do realise that a) Guiscard was responding to Tyr's claims that free trade made the USA big and government interference is stopping that, which is just plain wrong, and b) the confederacy was protesting against the government setting their slaves free which led to the Civil War?

Beat me to it.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well bugger me sideways and call me jim...Guiscard presents us with brilliant, referenced articles, that prove...well, that protectionsism exists.
I'm telling you it's economic bullshit and caused the Civil War.
Did you howver ever hear of Lerner Symmetry Condition or Ricardo's theory of Comparative Advantage? Of Johnson sending in troops to quell South Carolina's anti-protectionnism?

Nappy, you seem to be interpreting my post wrongly. I was responding to the Tyr's ridiculous statement that pre-World War the US embodied a commitment to free-market economics, non-interference in individual rights and a rejection of foreign entanglements.

I really don't understand what shitty points you're trying to score here. Any basic GCSE-level modern history class will tell you that the American economic system was essentially based on protectionist principles pre-World War.

Ok for the protectionism being nonsense.

However when it comes to the question of the Civil War...you need tolook for far deeper causes.

And America's encouragement of free enterprise and uniquely libertarian economic structure are it's base, not protectionism, you can't base an economy on protectionism. Sure it existed, but mainly for the Industrial North, the South meanwhile suffered the economic consequences....

[Napoleon Ier]

you're suffering from a combinatio of a)hubris, b) primary anti-americanism. Not sure what you can do about that.

[suggs]

Certainly, slavery was only a partial cause of the Civil War.
States rights versus federalism was the key.

[luns101]

Well Jay, if you think I was passing judgment on you then I apologize in front of everyone here in the forums. My intent was to get you to think differently about how you interpret current events. As a Christian, I was trying to appeal to you through the scriptures that no matter what period of time we live in, it's always a good time to help others. I believe that it's time better spent.

Back in October of 1997, I attended a so-called "conference" that was lead by a man named Chuck Missler. This was at a Christian Church (Horizon Christian Fellowship of Clairemont Mesa, San Diego). During this presentation by Mr. Missler, he claimed that there would be this upcoming Y2K catastrophe. To paraphrase, he claimed some pretty incredible things:

1. The Y2K crisis would be so bad that people should sell their homes and buy cattle, chickens, goats because food would be unavailable in grocery stores.

2. Christians should go live in the country to avoid the upcoming inner-city riots that would result from no electricity/power plant failures. The police would be unable to deal with the riots.

3. Bill Clinton would use the Y2K crisis as an excuse to put through an executive order, keeping himself in office indefinitely and would refuse to step down as President of the United States.

Of course, you could get more information on the impending doom by purchasing one of his books or tape series in the back.

Those were pretty incredible claims and when it came to "question & answer time" with Chuck, I challenged him on these assertions. I also suggested that he was propagating this myth as a way to sell more books and make people feel like they had the "inside scoop" on what would happen while everyone else suffered. During the course of the discussion, he told us that the military had an obligation to disobey Bill Clinton. His reasoning...Clinton had violated the Constitution and the military had a higher obligation to the Constitution than to the commander-in-chief. I totally disagreed with that because the scriptures say we must obey our govt. leaders.

Chuck Missler was wrong, Jay. Lots of people sold their homes and went into debt because this selfish individual duped them. That was what I was trying to save you from...being duped by half-truths and sensationalized interpretations of the NWO, NAU, or end-times ID tags...only this time of the Ron Paul variety.

Once again, you're a good guy and I'm sorry if I offended you to the point of leaving the forums. If I offended anyone else I am also sorry.

[suggs]

I find your reasonable, sane and quite likeable Xianity offensive, darn you!
Bring back Jay!

[Guiscard]

I find your reasonable, sane and quite likeable Xianity offensive, darn you!
Bring back Jay!

Annoying, isn't it

[Guiscard]

However when it comes to the question of the Civil War...you need tolook for far deeper causes.

I didn't mention the fucking civil war, Nappy. It was a simple point in response to a ridiculous statement. Even you admit the US espoused significant protectionist tendancies, so his original point about pre-WW free trade was equally as ridiculous through either interpretation.

Stop looking for a pseudo-intellectual fight, you prat.

[suggs]

I embrace the Pseudo

[Snorri1234]

Certainly, slavery was only a partial cause of the Civil War.
States rights versus federalism was the key.

True. Which ofcourse isn't the same as Free trade vs protectionism.

[Napoleon Ier]

Certainly, slavery was only a partial cause of the Civil War.
States rights versus federalism was the key.

True. Which ofcourse isn't the same as Free trade vs protectionism.

It is. Lerner Symmetry caused Southern cotton exports to suffer due to Northern protectionism, which led to a mini-revolt in South Carolina, which wanted to be able to competitevely export its grain in exchange for the protected goods from other nations.

[muy_thaiguy]

I have no idea what you're blabbering about, Nappy. You do realise that a) Guiscard was responding to Tyr's claims that free trade made the USA big and government interference is stopping that, which is just plain wrong, and b) the confederacy was protesting against the government setting their slaves free which led to the Civil War?

Actually, the whole setting of slaves free didn't come until 1863 I believe. Before, it was a State vs Federal thing mainly. Many Southerners will call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression." Though, it's contradictory in the fact that the South was first to fire a shot (Fort Sumter I think), and up till Gettysburg, it was the South making incursions into the North. But Gettysburg was the actual turning point, because though both sides lost between 25,000 to 30,000 men apiece, the South could not afford to lose so many men, while the North (may sound cold hearted) could.

[Snorri1234]

Certainly, slavery was only a partial cause of the Civil War.
States rights versus federalism was the key.

True. Which ofcourse isn't the same as Free trade vs protectionism.

It is. Lerner Symmetry caused Southern cotton exports to suffer due to Northern protectionism, which led to a mini-revolt in South Carolina, which wanted to be able to competitevely export its grain in exchange for the protected goods from other nations.

I'm not saying protectionism didn't play a role as a cause of the war, but you're being silly here. Protectionism wasn't the cause of the war, it was a factor in it. Just as slavery and the feel of the southerners that the federal government shouldn't be telling them what to do were factors.

Some economists have a tendency to bring every single thing down to economical forces. You should always take that with a grain of salt.

[unriggable]

I'm amazed by jay's steadfast stance. Whatever, he'll think he's right the whole time in having Paul lose, but will recieve a pleasant surprise when the democrats, who are also against a national ID card, get into office.

[Snorri1234]

I have no idea what you're blabbering about, Nappy. You do realise that a) Guiscard was responding to Tyr's claims that free trade made the USA big and government interference is stopping that, which is just plain wrong, and b) the confederacy was protesting against the government setting their slaves free which led to the Civil War?

Actually, the whole setting of slaves free didn't come until 1863 I believe. Before, it was a State vs Federal thing mainly. Many Southerners will call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression." Though, it's contradictory in the fact that the South was first to fire a shot (Fort Sumter I think), and up till Gettysburg, it was the South making incursions into the North. But Gettysburg was the actual turning point, because though both sides lost between 25,000 to 30,000 men apiece, the South could not afford to lose so many men, while the North (may sound cold hearted) could.

Yeah I was a bit exagerating with my post. Was responding a bit quick there.

[suggs]

Anyway, we are no longer talking about Ron Paul, who is AN UTTER NONENTITY. I am genuinely baffled why he is mentioned so often on this site. The quality British papers (The Times, The Guardian etc) who provide quite extensive coverage of the US primaries, barely ever mention his name.
Why is everyone so obsessed by Ron Paul on this site

[unriggable]

Because he's rational

[Napoleon Ier]

Certainly, slavery was only a partial cause of the Civil War.
States rights versus federalism was the key.

True. Which ofcourse isn't the same as Free trade vs protectionism.

It is. Lerner Symmetry caused Southern cotton exports to suffer due to Northern protectionism, which led to a mini-revolt in South Carolina, which wanted to be able to competitevely export its grain in exchange for the protected goods from other nations.

I'm not saying protectionism didn't play a role as a cause of the war, but you're being silly here. Protectionism wasn't the cause of the war, it was a factor in it. Just as slavery and the feel of the southerners that the federal government shouldn't be telling them what to do were factors.

Some economists have a tendency to bring every single thing down to economical forces. You should always take that with a grain of salt.

You're right there. I just am angered when people say "it waz teh leik racizm slaveryz1111", when something was genuinly noble about the cause some Southerners fought in. Robert E. Lee is one of my heroes.

[unriggable]

Good call napoleon, but Robert E Lee shows just how much some people are in love with their homeland. Because the only major difference between the CSA and USA was the slavery law, and Lee did not agree with it in any way; he just fought for Virginia, his home state.

[Napoleon Ier]

Good call napoleon, but Robert E Lee shows just how much some people are in love with their homeland. Because the only major difference between the CSA and USA was the slavery law, and Lee did not agree with it in any way; he just fought for Virginia, his home state.

Precisely.

[luns101]

Why is everyone so obsessed by Ron Paul on this site

I have a theory, but it's only that. This election is beginning to shape up like the 1996 election as far as the Republicans are concerned. There is an enthusiasm on the part of the Democrats. Republicans want someone who speaks to conservative principles and honestly believes in them without just paying "lip service" to them.

Ron Paul has been the most vocal against Hillary Clinton in the debates. He speaks more passionately than any other Republican candidate that I've seen. He absolutely does not back down from any challenge. When you see that kind of determination, it's hard not to admire it (even though I don't support him). The other Republican candidates seem to back down when challenged to defend their conservative views. So in the absence of a truly conservative candidate, Paul fills the void that many are looking for in an opposition candidate to Hillary.

Many who support Ron Paul are libertarian. They're a whole different kind of animal than we conservatives. Quite frankly, they are more dedicated to their principles. Traditionally, liberals & conservatives are more practical at compromising part of their ideology than libertarians in order to achieve legislation getting passed. This is one reason why I believe they don't get elected to office. But it's just my opinion, suggs.

[unriggable]

Traditionally, liberals & conservatives are more practical at compromising part of their ideology than libertarians in order to achieve legislation getting passed.

That is very, very true.

[suggs]

Makes complete sense.
Are you implying (or am i inferring -aagh!) that Republicans feel that they are going to lose (a la '96) so they might as well lose with someone who is a genuine Republican? In other words, they think they've lost the battle for the centre, so they want to consolidate the Republican base?
Thanks Luns, that was really helpful.

[luns101]

Are you implying (or am i inferring -aagh!) that Republicans feel that they are going to lose (a la '96) so they might as well lose with someone who is a genuine Republican? In other words, they think they've lost the battle for the centre, so they want to consolidate the Republican base?

Once again, this is only a guess because I myself am a conservative Republican. I can't speak for all Republicans.

What I think is really happening is that Republicans believe we win on principles almost every time. But in the absence of a truly conservative candidate, we will vote "against" the other party. I think we would like to have a candidate that we can vote "for" positively. Voting for someone in our own party just because we don't like the other party isn't as much motivation.

I think people (not just Republicans) like to vote "for" a candidate more than voting "against" the other guy....the lesser of two evils choice.

[suggs]

Cool, cheers for that!
Fair enough-I like my liberals to be liberals too