[Kosh]

The American Revolution around 1776 led to much more than just freedom to the USA, as it caused many people to rebel against their leaders. The reason Canada is doing well is partially thanks to that - Many canadian people fought in their own ways for partial independence. For more details on that you'll have to check Canadese history, I'm not very proficient at it.

The only revolution that could be directly attributed to it was the French Revolution, but even then it was combined with an economic depression and famine. Even so it turned out to be a big bloody mess, so perhaps it is best unmentioned.

[Nemesis6]

I'll just cut in here -

Ron Paul is a quack on matters like climate change, stating that there's no scientific consensus that global warming is getting worse, or is man-made, citing the phony "oregon petition" as evidence.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-29/cap-and-trade-another-nail-in-the-economys-coffin/

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the EPA. (yes, really.)
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=100405_3683,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml here

Ron Paul is really like most of other politicians; he's not immune to repeating talking points like the denalist petition above, or repeating long-discarded claims like vaccines causing Gulf War Sydrome, and it makes sense, because InfoWars.com and the lunatics on his forums eat it up. I can't tell if he actually believes this non-sense, or if he's an opportunist who knows that he's popular with the fringes of American politics, and hence panders to their paranoia, whether it's about vaccines, or about Creationism. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, read some of the stuff on the Ron Paul forums, like this:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-102118.html?s=33b153223b9c8eeb06433820b42a143b

[Bobboau]

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the

federal government.

don't just focus on the one or two bits that stick in your side.

[Luis Dias]

Why shouldn't he focus on the points he wants to? I mean, look at your reply, as if you only care about his stance on the federal government and just focus on it....

[NGTM-1R]

Without it we'd all be reconquered by the British Empire and be a poor colony. And it sure is a lot younger than the idea of tyranny - over 6000 years old.

In the long run an independent America has actually turned out well for the Brits. The great waves of immigration and industrialization would probably not have occurred had the American states remained British colonies. There would have been no US entry into WW1 to provide the morale boost and the fresh manpower needed to defeat the Central Powers, meaning the French Army would have mutinied in the field sometime in mid-1918 and the Allies would have lost the war, at immense cost to the British Empire.

A similar argument can be constructed regarding the United States' 99 shipyards rendering the Battle of the Atlantic a foregone conclusion in WW2.

More practically: they let us go. Make no mistake, the British Empire had the means to reconquer the revolutionary colonies, but it could not be done while the French fleet threatened their lines of supply. They simply weren't willing to fight wars on top of wars for it, particularly when half their government was disgusted with the incompetence of the other half in handling the issue and wanted to wash their hands of it.

[Scotty]

Without it we'd all be reconquered by the British Empire and be a poor colony. And it sure is a lot younger than the idea of tyranny - over 6000 years old.

In the long run an independent America has actually turned out well for the Brits. The great waves of immigration and industrialization would probably not have occurred had the American states remained British colonies. There would have been no US entry into WW1 to provide the morale boost and the fresh manpower needed to defeat the Central Powers, meaning the French Army would have mutinied in the field sometime in mid-1918 and the Allies would have lost the war, at immense cost to the British Empire.

A similar argument can be constructed regarding the United States' 99 shipyards rendering the Battle of the Atlantic a foregone conclusion in WW2.

The argument could be made that the morale boost in 1918 would not have been necessary due to increased manpower and wartime production from a colonial America and that the war might well have been over before 1918 even rolled around.

Similarly the shipyards could just as easily have been built in our hypothetical colonial America and rendered the Atlantic just as foregone a conclusion.

[NGTM-1R]

The argument could be made that the morale boost in 1918 would not have been necessary due to increased manpower and wartime production from a colonial America and that the war might well have been over before 1918 even rolled around.

Ahhahahahaha.

No.

It can't.

You have completely failed to understand the strategic dynamics of World War I. It was, quite literally, a race to see whose army would mutiny in the field first. There was no way to obtain a victory on the field of battle on the Western front. (And the Germans tried mightily to do so before the US could transport sufficient troops to make a difference.) The Allies were going to lose it, until the US entered the war. This not only propped up the French with the promise of reinforcements, it also crippled the Germans because they knew they were tapped out and could not sustain another year or two of fighting.

Entry with the Commonwealth would not have affected the key problem from the Allied perspective, which was the inability of the French state to sustain the war that long inside their own borders. Another few divisions for the BEF isn't going to fix that.

Similarly the shipyards could just as easily have been built in our hypothetical colonial America and rendered the Atlantic just as foregone a conclusion.

Oh really? The Louisana purchase still happened? Both coasts were still American? We would have advanced further than the Ohio River Valley? No. The British crown would never have allowed it, because it would have taken place at the expense of other subjects of the Crown; the key difference in thought between the colonists and the home country, if you can describe one, is that the colonists had a rather rapacious outlook towards the natives whereas the Crown considered everyone subjects following the French and Indian War and had no interest in abusing one group for the betterment of another.

We have empirical evidence on this subject. Look at Canada during the same period or the War of 1812. Look at Canada's history, or that of India, or Australia. All of them were at one point of similar size and importance to the American colonies. India was arguably more important in economic terms. None of them ever developed the local productive capacity to make the necessary contribution to the war efforts of the British Empire, and many of them were still very much dependents. (The British Isles were kept fed in 1943 at the cost of starving thousands in South Africa and India.) As a matter of policy, the American colonies would never have been placed in a position to match or exceed the home country while still under British control.

[Kosh]

Similarly the shipyards could just as easily have been built in our hypothetical colonial America and rendered the Atlantic just as foregone a conclusion.

That was the one thing Britain really did not need much help with, they already had a navy twice as big as the next two combined together.

Oh really? The Louisana purchase still happened? Both coasts were still American? We would have advanced further than the Ohio River Valley? No. The British crown would never have allowed it, because it would have taken place at the expense of other subjects of the Crown; the key difference in thought between the colonists and the home country, if you can describe one, is that the colonists had a rather rapacious outlook towards the natives whereas the Crown considered everyone subjects following the French and Indian War and had no interest in abusing one group for the betterment of another.

Louisiana might not have been purchased but since Napoleon had it the British might well have conquered it.

[karajorma]

Arguing what-ifs with any kind of certainty is ridiculous. Chaos theory is laughing at all of you.

[NGTM-1R]

That was the one thing Britain really did not need much help with, they already had a navy twice as big as the next two combined together.

You do not understand the Battle of the Atlantic and the issues it caused being based entirely on the ability to replace merchant shipping hulls rapidly. Indeed, by their own estimates the RN actually should have lost the Battle of the Atlantic by losing more than 500,000 GRT of merchant shipping. And not once, but twice. (They did not factor, and neither did the Germans, that the actual bar on the high jump was at 1.7 million to beat the US and its production capabilities.)

You do not understand the size, age, constraints on, and function of the Royal Navy during WW2. (Not as large as that, too old, unable to deploy major assets at sea for long periods due to insufficient auxiliaries and unwillingness to replenish underway, what function? The Home Fleet wasted the entire war, and the RN as a whole didn't even realize the Atlantic was where the war was going to be fought until late 1943, after four years of war.)

Louisiana might not have been purchased but since Napoleon had it the British might well have conquered it.

You do not understand how the British based their diplomacy of the period on conquering things so they could use them as bargaining chips for the following peace. Louisiana would have been returned in the peace because they would have had no interest in allowing it to develop.

Arguing what-ifs with any kind of certainty is ridiculous. Chaos theory is laughing at all of you.

Ah, but I'm not arguing what-ifs. I have actual evidence for all my positions.

[StarSlayer]

If I'm not mistaken the Louisiana Territory became pretty much useless to Bonaparte after Haiti managed to revolt from French Dominion anyway.

[karajorma]

Ah, but I'm not arguing what-ifs. I have actual evidence for all my positions.

You're arguing what would happen in WWI if the American Revolution hadn't happened. Ignoring the fact that if the American Revolution hadn't happened there almost certainly wouldn't have been a WWI that was in any way recognisable as the one we had.

There are so many variables that it's completely ridiculous.

[StarSlayer]

Ah, but I'm not arguing what-ifs. I have actual evidence for all my positions.

You're arguing what would happen in WWI if the American Revolution hadn't happened. Ignoring the fact that if the American Revolution hadn't happened there almost certainly wouldn't have been a WWI that was in any way recognisable at the one we had.

There are so many variables that it's completely ridiculous.

Which is a good point, without the American Revolution the hows, ifs and whens of the French Revolution could be completely different.  Then your looking at possibly eliminating Napoleon's rise to power and the French running ruck shod over the entirety of the Continent for all those years.   Not only would that cause a change in the technological and tactical development of warfare but the entire map of Europe would be dramatically different.  Hell, the Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs could still exist and the creation of Germany via Prussian maneuvering and dominance might not even have come to pass.

Might as well throw the entire book out the window.

[karajorma]

And that's before you consider all the political contributions of everyone who died on both sides during the war.

[NGTM-1R]

Which is a good point, without the American Revolution the hows, ifs and whens of the French Revolution could be completely different.

Doubtful. France's money issues weren't going to go away because the American Revolution didn't happen; the republican impulse was already well-entrenched in political thought before the American Revolution as a result of scholarship on Rome.

You might delay it a year or two but the assertion it would be completely different doesn't hold up to the economic condition of France.

[Grizzly]

The American Revolution also has provided a morale boost to the rebelling french, by proving that it could be done.

But if the American Revolution did not happen, no country recieved an 'advance warning' that some nations had the guts to rebel, and thus, they could not take countermeasures (if such countermeasures were taken, that is). England also could use it's full fighting force for whatever wars they waged at that time (I forgot, but I do recall that one of the reasons the AR succeeded is because of GB fighting at multiple fronts).

[JCDNWarrior]

I'm amazed how some people can be so critical and worried about Ron Paul yet I don't hear them burn down the other candidates for their much worse plans and simple talking points and no substance. Though I suppose it's hard to discuss a candidate without substance..

When you see or hear Ron Paul speak, you should write down the things that bother you, and research them. You'll see the scandals the EPA's been in, something i've argued a few months ago here, and of course the many holes and scandals of Global Warming/Climate Change.  I've tested it earlier and all I can find on Google is the many lies and scandals that can be found.

well, to make a comment back about the topic (if no one is opposed to me doing that) I honestly want Perry to get the nomination, I have a feeling he would get eviscerated in the general election, maybe not by Obama (who has shown himself to be incapable of political maneuvering) but I have a feeling the Comedy Central news team would do a good job. and I desperately want more public confrontation on this topic.

Perry is the choice that the establishment will push, but he'll be even worse than Obama, Bush and Clinton. He also was part of the Al Gore campaign in 2000 for Texas. He's been involved in many lies and flip-flopping and can be considered a master politician as he's quite good at it.

Of course, you'll get what you wish for - If you prefer a globalist that will continue to off shore your jobs and lower your standard of living over someone that wants to restore liberty. Luckily it's already clear from everything I followed about Ames Iowa that Ron Paul is vastly more popular and succesful than the rest of them, probably even combined.

[Bob-san]

Or, for Ron Paul speeches, start looking on Youtube or some of the other sites. There's a lot of archives. Heck, start "in the beginning". I remember seeing one from 1988 that was equally relevant. I remember seeing another about Clinton in Kosovo. That situation was quite similar to now Obama in Libya. Some aspects will be outdated but most of it is pretty damn relevant. Anyways, I agree with the method above: if you disagree or question that speech section, write it down and do some research. It's scary how accurate many statements are. I think a lot of these political monstrosities need to be dismantled and reconstructed. We have more experience with each topic so I think we can improve each department.

[karajorma]

I've tested it earlier and all I can find on Google is the many lies and scandals that can be found.

You're getting information on a complex scientific topic by seeing who can shout the loudest about it and therefore get higher page rankings on Google?

By that logic TimeCube is also a hotly debated topic!

EDIT - Interestingly following one of those links led me to this description of "Not even wrong" on rationalwiki.

Examples in real life often involve "skeptics" arguing with established scientists. In climategate, for example, where a thousand e-mails from leading climate change researchers were hacked and released publicly, most critics seemed to not understand the basic meaning behind some of the emails (climate science and atmospheric chemistry are complex disciplines), instead preferring to quote mine a few emails out of context and misunderstanding the use of the word "trick". Climate science is one of the areas where "not even wrong" arguments unfortunately apply a lot, owing to the complexity of the system under study. The political pressure group CO2 is Green certainly is not even wrong when declaring that "more CO2 is good for the planet because it's plant food". The whole of climatology, and plant biology is many, many orders of magnitude more complicated than such a statement suggests - CO2 is good, but more CO2 may certainly not be.

[Luis Dias]

The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier". But facts are facts and there are stains on climate science. Just like in any other science. Doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, doesn't mean evolution is a lie by atheistic biologists. And I'm pretty sure where Ron's paranoia is going to fall on.

Also, watch this one, for depressive thoughts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNm1-GMWdlw&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_883854