This house would vote Ron Paul

I thank con for continuing to provide some interesting clash. I must admit that I made a mistake in citing Johnson's debt. Turns out con was talking about Hamilton. I apologize for the confusion. Hamilton's debt was US$54 million - a measly 1/46th of Johnson's debt, which is in turn only a tiny portion of a trillion dollars, which is about 1/12th of US federal debt. US population at the time (1790-91) was at least 3,900,000, leading to a per capita debt of just under $14, close to half the per capita debt in Johnson's time. So Hamilton's debt situation was even better than Johnson's, whose debt situation I have already shown to be better than your current position. With that clarification out of the way, allow me to continue with more point for point rebuttals. we've been in in a worse debt situation beforeEven if that's true, you don't want to be put into that sitation again. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to actually reduce the deficit. You cannot keep increasing the deficit or you'll end up like you were during the great depression. KennedyI suppose this war of words could go on a long time. Needless to say that with Ron Paul, you won't need to worry about all that, because Ron Paul would take his missiles out of all foreign countries and thus eliminate the need for compromise. Indeed, the cold war probably wouldn't have happened if it had been for Ron Paul's foreign policy. It was US interventionism in Europe that sparked it, after all. VersaillesHyperinflation is not caused by debt. It's caused by printing money. The germans printed money to pay their bonds. All this is something Ron Paul opposes, for as he notes, paper money has never been officially legalised in the United States anyway, and this problem could not have occured with a gold standard. American depressionOf course I'm a decade off from the German recession, but the cause of both recessions was the same problem. Too much spending with too little money leading to too much borrowing and too much debt, leading in one case to mass unemployment and in the other to the destruction of the currency. The point is that with Ron Paul, you won't need to compromise with this either. LibyaLibya was not independant from Italy until 1951, so this was long after Lawrence of Arabia. Nevertheless Ron Paul supports the rights of all states to self-determination, and therefore you cannot blame him for a policy he never supported. SyriaYes but Syria's violence is not sectarian. Syria's government is not being targeted by any religion or creed or ethnic group. It is being targeted by a broad cross-section of their population. Also Iraq was not randomly drawn up after the treaty of Versailles, but has existed more or less continuously since the 6th millenium BC, and has always had many religious groups living there. People of all manner of cultures have been living on that plot of land ever since the days when the fertile crescent was the place to be. the congress and the president already cut huge numbers of goverment josIf you accept the principle that cutting government jobs is cool, then how about cutting five government departments? the president has outlined a plan to cut 4 trillion in 12 years4 trillion from the baseline, not 4 trillion from the current $12 trillion. The deficit will still increase under Obama, just as it will with all of the other GOP contenders. Please don't say only a president can make changeNo, but being a president helps. Story time. In Ancient Rome, two brothers, known as the Gracchi brothers, who had the power of veto over the senate (Rome's equivalent of congress) used that power to veto everything the senate did, even the mundane day-to-day things, until they had their way. The revolution they sparked eventually led to greater changes than the senate had achieved in 300 years. I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul would or should adopt this tactic. I'm just saying that the power of veto, in the hands of somebody with a bent ideology, is much more likely to effect change than simply the power of a vote in congress. An exective must be willing to put the greater good ahead of his own idelogyThat assumes that the ideology is not for the greater good. As far as you've been able to prove, Ron Paul's ideology is for the good of everybody. We didn't listen to ron paul and it got us into the richest most inovitve nation on earthNo, that's what you already were before Ron Paul. As I mentioned last round, the United States is starting to fall behind because you're no longer listening to your founding fathers, your constitution, and the wise old men (cough - Ron Paul - cough) who back them up. Ron paul did nothing to grow our GDP, and equalityThat's because nobody listened to him. He voted the right way, he did the right things for America, so don't blame him for the ignorance of the rest of congress. this isn't somedoy who did ANYTHING to further cival rights. That's also because nobody listened to him. When people start listening, change can come. If elected, people will listen to Paul. A person bent on his own idelogy that is unwilling to compramise does not belong in a goverment that survives by itThe real question is - should it survive by it? Or should it stop the idle talking, end the disiveness properly, and actually get stuff done? US executives have been "compromising" America's future for far too long. The government would do well to have a vision, which necessitates an ideology, not compromise. FedI won't waste characters either. My opponent is wrong about the fed. Con posts a source that says the federal reserve is audited. It does not say the federal reserve is fully audited, which is what I asked for. There's a big difference between the two, since I already provided a source from the fed's own website admitting they set the scope of their own audits. My opponent also contests my source as being a blog. Well, the "blog" is run by the Tea Party, who also posted this shorter news story on their main website: . http://www.teaparty.org.... Major business magazines and papers also ran the story, such as here: . http://articles.businessinsider.com....Sir your making up things. I'm not talking about qe1 and qu2, those are publically declared. I'm talking about the other $16 trillion the fed magically conjured out of nothing.97% reduction . .. In relation to gold, not inrelation to other world currencies. .. falciousSo you admit a gold standard would be 97% better? Or would you like to explain how this is fallacious? Winston churchill got results. .. lincon got results. .. charlie wilson did too. Churchill managed to do absolutely nothing while he was not in the executive. Lincoln did little in congress except argue with Douglas and give a speech at Copper Union. Charlie Wilson got much done, but that's because almost all of his policies were the opposite of Ron Paul's - sell weapons to the Taliban. Either he gets something done or Ron Paul does, you can't have both in an adversarial legislature. Wilson's policies are the reason so many American servicemen have been killed in Afghanistan. President Oabama wasn't trying to change goverment all thatmuch. I think most Obama supporters, when they held their "Change" placards, thought they meant meaningful change, not minor tweaks to the same old policy, did they not? Btw, ron paul has reapidly said executive orders were an abuse of power and he wouldn't use themNo, he said that executive orders have been abused to take over of the role of congress. But he has often said, for example, that he will immediately bring all the troops home. That's an executive order. It comes from the executive, it's an order, and Ron Paul would do it. Currency was stable? your spewing nonsense. Yes there were panics - there are always panics. But currency rarely lost much of its value until the fed came along in 1913.