Is Phatscotty a Republican?

[AAFitz]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?

I was very against the Iraq war, and Nader was the only voice against it. I was looking for pictures of my Nader halloween pumpkin I carved but don't know where they are. Plus, I was all caught up in that "If we can just get him 5%!" thing, and I was a lot younger, barely out of college. The war was a priority for me. That is when I was still on my third party streak. Locally I was very proud to vote for Jesse Ventura, and my other votes were for Tim Penny and Dean Berkley. I guess looking back I cared mostly about working outside the Republicans/Democrats and I had a lot of hope after seeing a 3rd party win the governorship in a state like Minnesota

Its ok, we all know you are also inclined to support and vote for candidates that dont have a chance in hell of having a chance in hell of winning the election.

It might even be your strong suit...but it is fun to mock.

[ooge]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?

I was very against the Iraq war, and Nader was the only voice against it. I was looking for pictures of my Nader halloween pumpkin I carved but don't know where they are. Plus, I was all caught up in that "If we can just get him 5%!" thing, and I was a lot younger, barely out of college. The war was a priority for me. That is when I was still on my third party streak. Locally I was very proud to vote for Jesse Ventura, and my other votes were for Tim Penny and Dean Berkley. I guess looking back I cared mostly about working outside the Republicans/Democrats and I had a lot of hope after seeing a 3rd party win the governorship in a state like Minnesota

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything.There are some things I like about Ron Paul but when I came across the problems he has with race,The Ron Paul Newsletter,Ron Paul being the only congressman to vote no against a civil rights bill.also he wants to put the country back on the Gold Standard,that not only would destroy the US economy it would cause a Global Depression.NO Ron Paul for me.

[Dukasaur]

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything..

Not exactly.

That's Nader's Nolan chart on top, Paul's on the bottom:

Quite far apart, but not exactly polar opposites. And if I was American, I too could consider voting for either of them. More Paul than Nader, but I would choose Nader over someone from the mainstream slug parties. Both hold some positions that I don't agree with, but the common thread is that both are opponents of the status quo and the military-industrial complex.

[Baron Von PWN]

I think of phatscotty as my blue collar uncle. He has a lot of opinions on things, he means well,and generally believes in the concept of "live and let live" but doesn't always think things through and has trouble admitting when he's wrong. So he gets in situations where he's defending a position he likely realizes is wrong but has backed himself into a corner and refuses to give up and admit being wrong.

That is the impression I get from scotty. Someone who is strongly opinionated, maybe lacking in formal education(entirely my impression no idea if its the case), and unwilling to back down or admit being wrong.

Nice enough guy, kindoff annoying to get into an argument over politics with.

[patches70]

also he wants to put the country back on the Gold Standard,that not only would destroy the US economy it would cause a Global Depression.

Why would you think that? It's not necessarily true.

Now, I don't want to go to the Gold Standard either, but it's not because I think there'd be a global depression. Ron Paul is more an advocate for sound money which doesn't necessarily have to be the Gold Standard, just that the currency is a representative currency instead of the fiat currencies in use all over the world today.

Representative currency protects against deflation, inflation, hyperinflation and monetary policy abuses (the latter was the main cause of the Great Depression BTW) but it can't be manipulated easily.
That's why governments hate such currency, because they can't control it like they can fiat currency. Bankers hate such currency because they can't lend what they want with money they create out of thin air. And things that bankers and governments hate can't be all bad!

I'm all for a sound money, and it doesn't have to be representative of gold.

I don't think your opinion on currencies is very informed at all. You'd be well served to address that IMO. It'll help you in the future.

Ron Paul being the only congressman to vote no against a civil rights bill.

And if you are talking about the civil rights Act of 1964 then you aren't even close to being right. He voted against it, but he certainly wasn't alone. And do you know why he voted against it? And do you know which party voted heavily against the civil rights act of 1964?

[Woodruff]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?

I was very against the Iraq war, and Nader was the only voice against it. I was looking for pictures of my Nader halloween pumpkin I carved but don't know where they are. Plus, I was all caught up in that "If we can just get him 5%!" thing, and I was a lot younger, barely out of college. The war was a priority for me. That is when I was still on my third party streak. Locally I was very proud to vote for Jesse Ventura, and my other votes were for Tim Penny and Dean Berkley. I guess looking back I cared mostly about working outside the Republicans/Democrats and I had a lot of hope after seeing a 3rd party win the governorship in a state like Minnesota

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything.

In fairness, people's perspectives do change over time.

[Woodruff]

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything..

Not exactly.

That's Nader's Nolan chart on top, Paul's on the bottom:

Uh...did you mean left and right? <smile>

Quite far apart, but not exactly polar opposites. And if I was American, I too could consider voting for either of them. More Paul than Nader, but I would choose Nader over someone from the mainstream slug parties. Both hold some positions that I don't agree with, but the common thread is that both are opponents of the status quo and the military-industrial complex.

Not only that, but they both have shown a consistency to those positions that makes it much more likely to be sincere.

[Woodruff]

Representative currency protects against deflation, inflation, hyperinflation and monetary policy abuses (the latter was the main cause of the Great Depression BTW) but it can't be manipulated easily.
That's why governments hate such currency, because they can't control it like they can fiat currency. Bankers hate such currency because they can't lend what they want with money they create out of thin air. And things that bankers and governments hate can't be all bad!
I'm all for a sound money, and it doesn't have to be representative of gold.

I agree with this, but if not the Gold Standard, what would it be representative of?

[patches70]

Representative currency protects against deflation, inflation, hyperinflation and monetary policy abuses (the latter was the main cause of the Great Depression BTW) but it can't be manipulated easily.
That's why governments hate such currency, because they can't control it like they can fiat currency. Bankers hate such currency because they can't lend what they want with money they create out of thin air. And things that bankers and governments hate can't be all bad!
I'm all for a sound money, and it doesn't have to be representative of gold.

I agree with this, but if not the Gold Standard, what would it be representative of?

Oh there are lots of things that the currency can be tied to. Ancient Egypt got to be the richest nation at the time by tying their money to wheat.*
If we were to tie our currency to precious metals, then it shouldn't be to only gold. Who owns all the gold? The Central banks. And they're hoarding it.** If we base our currency to PMs then it should include not only gold but also silver and copper. That would give a decently large supply of money for our needs (if we weren't wasteful) and would make it very hard for any one group to control all three of those PMs.

But you could tie the money to anything, so long as what it's tied to is a resource that requires effort to collect.

But there have been all kinds of alternative economic systems and some very successful. Those during modern times have always been suppressed by TPTB and Central banks who want to maintain their monopoly on the foundation of civilization.*** Money is the representation of all your efforts, work, sweat and blood and most importantly, your time. Having a currency there you know exactly what all your efforts will be worth in the future is a very stabilizing foundation.
Our current system, your efforts are worth less and less every day where you must spend more time, more effort to gain what you used to in the past.
This is why we have two income families that are still barely scraping to get by when in the past one income was more than enough. It's because the measurement of those efforts has been debased constantly so that the State and the banks can meet their goals. All too often their interests are not in the individuals best interest. And it causes all kinds of problems right on down the line. From political to social to moral and ethical issues.
Where today there are Too Big to Fail institutions, people and groups, we individuals are too small to succeed. Because our efforts are constantly being stolen day after day through currency devaluation. Representative currencies make this a much harder thing to do by TPTB.


*You know the old bible story about the famine in the land where Joseph told Pharaoh there would be seven good years and seven lean years. Pharaoh tied his money to wheat and in the good years he collected lots of wheat and stored it safely. When the famine came every nation came to Egypt to purchase grains. Egypt grew fabulously wealthy because they had a huge abundance.
What isn't really gone into with the story is the economic system in Egypt at the time. Payments were made in grain. They had a representative currency where anyone could turn in their currency at the royal granaries and receive a set amount of grain. The currency was backed by grain, a resource vital for survival so Egyptian currency was prized by everyone.
It wasn't a currency you'd be familiar with today, the Egyptians didn't strike gold coins (at the time). Likely their currency was clay tablets or something, but we know it was all tied directly to the amount of grain held.
When other nations who were starving came to Egypt, they traded gold, lumber, virtually anything of value to get that food. And Egypt got rich beyond belief because they had based their monetary system on a resource, instead of a fiat currency or a precious metal.
Joseph's story of being a prophet one can take as they will, but in truth Egypt did grow very wealthy during an especially bad time famine wise and we know for a fact that they tied their economic system to grain. And they prospered greatly while the rest of the world struggled.
Consider, agriculture was the base of society at the time. A famine would be the equivalent of a depression, would it not? Yet, Egypt grew wealthy anyway, because they had a sound economic system at the time and used it wisely.
And that is the crux, using one's system wisely. Sound money doesn't help people who live beyond their means or who are foolish with what they spend on.


** One must always remember, the Gold Standard Golden Rule- He who owns the gold makes the rules.


***The latest incarnation is the Bitcoin which is now in the process of being taken over and regulated by TPTB. I could go into that issue in depth. Suffice it to say, investing in Bitcoins isn't a safe thing to do at this time. But to each his own I suppose.

[kentington]

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything..

Not exactly.

That's Nader's Nolan chart on top, Paul's on the bottom:

Uh...did you mean left and right? <smile>

Most likely he was on a mobile device with a smaller screen. It makes it top and bottom.

[Dukasaur]

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything..

Not exactly.

That's Nader's Nolan chart on top, Paul's on the bottom:

Uh...did you mean left and right? <smile>

Most likely he was on a mobile device with a smaller screen. It makes it top and bottom.

Standard desktop computer with a 14" monitor. 1024 x 768 pixels. And yes, it's top to bottom on my screen.

You guys with the newfangled hi-res widescreen monitors are spoiled...

[kentington]

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything..

Not exactly.

That's Nader's Nolan chart on top, Paul's on the bottom:

Uh...did you mean left and right? <smile>

Most likely he was on a mobile device with a smaller screen. It makes it top and bottom.

Standard desktop computer with a 14" monitor. 1024 x 768 pixels. And yes, it's top to bottom on my screen.

You guys with the newfangled hi-res widescreen monitors are spoiled...

A 14" monitor is a mobile device.

[waauw]

Representative currency protects against deflation, inflation, hyperinflation and monetary policy abuses (the latter was the main cause of the Great Depression BTW) but it can't be manipulated easily.
That's why governments hate such currency, because they can't control it like they can fiat currency. Bankers hate such currency because they can't lend what they want with money they create out of thin air. And things that bankers and governments hate can't be all bad!
I'm all for a sound money, and it doesn't have to be representative of gold.

I agree with this, but if not the Gold Standard, what would it be representative of?

Oh there are lots of things that the currency can be tied to. Ancient Egypt got to be the richest nation at the time by tying their money to wheat.*
If we were to tie our currency to precious metals, then it shouldn't be to only gold. Who owns all the gold? The Central banks. And they're hoarding it.** If we base our currency to PMs then it should include not only gold but also silver and copper. That would give a decently large supply of money for our needs (if we weren't wasteful) and would make it very hard for any one group to control all three of those PMs.

But you could tie the money to anything, so long as what it's tied to is a resource that requires effort to collect.

But there have been all kinds of alternative economic systems and some very successful. Those during modern times have always been suppressed by TPTB and Central banks who want to maintain their monopoly on the foundation of civilization.*** Money is the representation of all your efforts, work, sweat and blood and most importantly, your time. Having a currency there you know exactly what all your efforts will be worth in the future is a very stabilizing foundation.
Our current system, your efforts are worth less and less every day where you must spend more time, more effort to gain what you used to in the past.
This is why we have two income families that are still barely scraping to get by when in the past one income was more than enough. It's because the measurement of those efforts has been debased constantly so that the State and the banks can meet their goals. All too often their interests are not in the individuals best interest. And it causes all kinds of problems right on down the line. From political to social to moral and ethical issues.
Where today there are Too Big to Fail institutions, people and groups, we individuals are too small to succeed. Because our efforts are constantly being stolen day after day through currency devaluation. Representative currencies make this a much harder thing to do by TPTB.


*You know the old bible story about the famine in the land where Joseph told Pharaoh there would be seven good years and seven lean years. Pharaoh tied his money to wheat and in the good years he collected lots of wheat and stored it safely. When the famine came every nation came to Egypt to purchase grains. Egypt grew fabulously wealthy because they had a huge abundance.
What isn't really gone into with the story is the economic system in Egypt at the time. Payments were made in grain. They had a representative currency where anyone could turn in their currency at the royal granaries and receive a set amount of grain. The currency was backed by grain, a resource vital for survival so Egyptian currency was prized by everyone.
It wasn't a currency you'd be familiar with today, the Egyptians didn't strike gold coins (at the time). Likely their currency was clay tablets or something, but we know it was all tied directly to the amount of grain held.
When other nations who were starving came to Egypt, they traded gold, lumber, virtually anything of value to get that food. And Egypt got rich beyond belief because they had based their monetary system on a resource, instead of a fiat currency or a precious metal.
Joseph's story of being a prophet one can take as they will, but in truth Egypt did grow very wealthy during an especially bad time famine wise and we know for a fact that they tied their economic system to grain. And they prospered greatly while the rest of the world struggled.
Consider, agriculture was the base of society at the time. A famine would be the equivalent of a depression, would it not? Yet, Egypt grew wealthy anyway, because they had a sound economic system at the time and used it wisely.
And that is the crux, using one's system wisely. Sound money doesn't help people who live beyond their means or who are foolish with what they spend on.


** One must always remember, the Gold Standard Golden Rule- He who owns the gold makes the rules.


***The latest incarnation is the Bitcoin which is now in the process of being taken over and regulated by TPTB. I could go into that issue in depth. Suffice it to say, investing in Bitcoins isn't a safe thing to do at this time. But to each his own I suppose.

I agree that having a gold standard could a good thing, however I don't entirely agree with your suggestion of copper and to a lesser degree silver. Copper is a metal too abundant in the earths crust. If one would go on a copper standard(even partially), the amounts of copper mined annually would skyrocket, hence resulting in more moneyprinting.

Another problem with copper is that it's a metal that is too important for our industry, the same goes for silver actually. A copper or silver standard might result in higher prices for both metals and more inflow into the monetary markets rather into the markets of tangible goods.

But why not a currency system as proposed by Friedrich Hayek. Let the free market work. Get rid of central banks and let the markets create their own currencies. This way people will get to pick between multiple currencies. They will be forced to learn more about it and if ever any monetary institution would misbehave(expansionary policy), then the people would simply drop that currency and jump to another.

Of course you could also just create a system where gold and silver once again become legal tender. Let the central banks have their fiat currency but let the people have the option to pay in precious metals. Basically you'd still have the same system as today, except people get a legally accepted safetynet.

[patches70]

I agree that having a gold standard could a good thing, however I don't entirely agree with your suggestion of copper and to a lesser degree silver. Copper is a metal too abundant in the earths crust. If one would go on a copper standard(even partially), the amounts of copper mined annually would skyrocket, hence resulting in more moneyprinting.

The thing with gold is there isn't enough of it. It's scarcity makes it ripe for manipulation. Adding silver alleviates some of that, but I'm just thinking about the amount of money that will actually be needed. When you tie your currency to something it will be very desirable to have. I'll get into some problems with that in a moment.

Another problem with copper is that it's a metal that is too important for our industry, the same goes for silver actually. A copper or silver standard might result in higher prices for both metals and more inflow into the monetary markets rather into the markets of tangible goods.

Sure, if we went to a gold and silver standard today, silver's price would be about 1/16th the price of gold, aroundabouts. That would be a significant increase in the price of silver, obviously, but that price would stay stable, a lot more so than the value of fiat currency. One can only mine but so much silver after all. And they are both important to industry, as is gold BTW. It has intrinsic value as well.

But why not a currency system as proposed by Friedrich Hayek. Let the free market work. Get rid of central banks and let the markets create their own currencies. This way people will get to pick between multiple currencies. They will be forced to learn more about it and if ever any monetary institution would misbehave(expansionary policy), then the people would simply drop that currency and jump to another.

Sure, that's an alternative. Those issuing the currency would protect it, lest people leave it.

Of course you could also just create a system where gold and silver once again become legal tender. Let the central banks have their fiat currency but let the people have the option to pay in precious metals. Basically you'd still have the same system as today, except people get a legally accepted safetynet.

The problem with that is Gresham's law. Bad money drives out good money.

You have a store, a person comes in and has fiat dollars and gold dollars. Which would you prefer to have?
Conversely, if you have fiat dollars and gold dollars and you wish to purchase something, which dollars will you spend?

You'd spend the fiat dollars of course. The gold dollars would be stashed away quickly, would they not? You'd spend the fiat dollars before they lost value and you'd hold onto the gold because over time it will increase in value.

And thus in no time at all all the gold legal tender would soon disappear from the market place as people hoard it. In the end you'd have all the producers holding the gold and all the consumers holding the fiat dollars. The Central banks also would have a horrible advantage in that they'd print fiat dollars and buy gold with it. Like they are now.

It's best to do away with the central banks all together. Don't allow them to create money out of thin air. That's too much power for any small group of people to have. Use a currency that is strictly based on the amount of whatever resource they are tied to. People will labor hard to acquire the means of producing more of that resource as well.

The problem we have today is that The Fed is creating some $85 billion a month just to keep the economy propped up. At some point they'll have to stop doing that and everything comes crashing down and we'll see that this "recovery" is all based on smoke and mirrors. It will be a rude awakening for most people. Those who have prepared, well, they'll do just fine.

In the past, it was gold and silver as the base. That is dollars were tied to gold. The gold was held in reserves and silver was coined as well. I'm only saying to put copper in there so we have enough of a resource to have an adequate monetary base. So it would be the dollar tied to gold, silver and copper coined to supplement the gold back dollars.
I dunno, I'm always thinking of other alternatives to the unstable fiat system which is really just a 1,000 year old scam. The fiat system benefits only the bankers. Everyone else is fated to become debt slaves.

Not that the current money powers will easily give up their monopoly, will they? That's another hurdle to deal with, but I think if people truly understood where our current currency system comes from, how it works, they'd understand how bad it really is. How much most people have to suffer for it while a tiny percentage continue to suck the wealth and real assets away from thew whole.

[Lootifer]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government and central bank you can trust...

I would suggest thats an easier path than trying (and undoubtedly failing) to change from established fiat currencies.

[waauw]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

I would suggest thats an easier path than trying (and undoubtedly failing) to change from established fiat currencies.

I think we should get some things clear here. There is a big difference between a monetary government(central bank) and a budgetary government(what you know as a government). This is basically a seperation of power. So replacing politicians isn't per sé going to change the structural problems in the monetary systems.

[patches70]

I would suggest thats an easier path than trying (and undoubtedly failing) to change from established fiat currencies.

Fiat currencies change all the time. In fact, the US' current currency came into existence in 1971. It's getting quite old as far as fiat currencies go and it's showing it's age. Fiat currencies only last about 40 years or so on average. So ours is due to be replaced.

[patches70]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

I would suggest thats an easier path than trying (and undoubtedly failing) to change from established fiat currencies.

I think we should get some things clear here. There is a big difference between a monetary government(central bank) and a budgetary government(what you know as a government). This is basically a seperation of power. So replacing politicians isn't per sé going to change the structural problems in the monetary systems.

Exactly.

[Phatscotty]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?

I was very against the Iraq war, and Nader was the only voice against it. I was looking for pictures of my Nader halloween pumpkin I carved but don't know where they are. Plus, I was all caught up in that "If we can just get him 5%!" thing, and I was a lot younger, barely out of college. The war was a priority for me. That is when I was still on my third party streak. Locally I was very proud to vote for Jesse Ventura, and my other votes were for Tim Penny and Dean Berkley. I guess looking back I cared mostly about working outside the Republicans/Democrats and I had a lot of hope after seeing a 3rd party win the governorship in a state like Minnesota

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything.There are some things I like about Ron Paul but when I came across the problems he has with race,The Ron Paul Newsletter,Ron Paul being the only congressman to vote no against a civil rights bill.also he wants to put the country back on the Gold Standard,that not only would destroy the US economy it would cause a Global Depression.NO Ron Paul for me.

What is more important? A comment on race (not even by Ron Paul) 30 years ago, or supporting perpetual military intervention with lots of dead innocent people and shattered families in 130+ countries?

[Lootifer]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

I would suggest thats an easier path than trying (and undoubtedly failing) to change from established fiat currencies.

I think we should get some things clear here. There is a big difference between a monetary government(central bank) and a budgetary government(what you know as a government). This is basically a seperation of power. So replacing politicians isn't per sé going to change the structural problems in the monetary systems.

Exactly.

I like how you assume I was talking about a budgetary government...

Initial post fixed.

[waauw]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

I would suggest thats an easier path than trying (and undoubtedly failing) to change from established fiat currencies.

I think we should get some things clear here. There is a big difference between a monetary government(central bank) and a budgetary government(what you know as a government). This is basically a seperation of power. So replacing politicians isn't per sé going to change the structural problems in the monetary systems.

Exactly.

I like how you assume I was talking about a budgetary government...

Initial post fixed.

well my appology then. It was based on the fact that most people do refer to the budetary government when they say government.

However replacing the people at the head of the central bank does not change anything structurally either. This is just a temporary solution. Just as with politicians, monetary policy makers come and go. Sometimes you get good policymakers, sometimes you get bad ones. And it's to prevent the bad policymakers to make mistakes that you make structural reforms.

Also replacing the boardmembers of the central bank isn't as easy as replacing politicians as they don't get elected democratically, or at least less democratically.

[Phatscotty]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

It's called the Tea Party.

[ooge]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?

I was very against the Iraq war, and Nader was the only voice against it. I was looking for pictures of my Nader halloween pumpkin I carved but don't know where they are. Plus, I was all caught up in that "If we can just get him 5%!" thing, and I was a lot younger, barely out of college. The war was a priority for me. That is when I was still on my third party streak. Locally I was very proud to vote for Jesse Ventura, and my other votes were for Tim Penny and Dean Berkley. I guess looking back I cared mostly about working outside the Republicans/Democrats and I had a lot of hope after seeing a 3rd party win the governorship in a state like Minnesota

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything.There are some things I like about Ron Paul but when I came across the problems he has with race,The Ron Paul Newsletter,Ron Paul being the only congressman to vote no against a civil rights bill.also he wants to put the country back on the Gold Standard,that not only would destroy the US economy it would cause a Global Depression.NO Ron Paul for me.

What is more important? A comment on race (not even by Ron Paul) 30 years ago, or supporting perpetual military intervention with lots of dead innocent people and shattered families in 130+ countries?

phatman would have you believe Ron Paul was not responsible for a news letter called"The Ron Paul Newsletter" that does not make sense to anyone. Ron Paul and his son by what They have said both would choose to not support Civil rights legislation.

[Phatscotty]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?

I was very against the Iraq war, and Nader was the only voice against it. I was looking for pictures of my Nader halloween pumpkin I carved but don't know where they are. Plus, I was all caught up in that "If we can just get him 5%!" thing, and I was a lot younger, barely out of college. The war was a priority for me. That is when I was still on my third party streak. Locally I was very proud to vote for Jesse Ventura, and my other votes were for Tim Penny and Dean Berkley. I guess looking back I cared mostly about working outside the Republicans/Democrats and I had a lot of hope after seeing a 3rd party win the governorship in a state like Minnesota

Nader/Ron Paul, polar opposites..shows a lack of critical thinking or not really believing in anything.There are some things I like about Ron Paul but when I came across the problems he has with race,The Ron Paul Newsletter,Ron Paul being the only congressman to vote no against a civil rights bill.also he wants to put the country back on the Gold Standard,that not only would destroy the US economy it would cause a Global Depression.NO Ron Paul for me.

What is more important? A comment on race (not even by Ron Paul) 30 years ago, or supporting perpetual military intervention with lots of dead innocent people and shattered families in 130+ countries?

phatman would have you believe Ron Paul was not responsible for a news letter called"The Ron Paul Newsletter" that does not make sense to anyone. Ron Paul and his son by what They have said both would choose to not support Civil rights legislation.

to a far less extent than Obama is not responsible for his administration. The point is, it was just a comment, and Ron Paul did not make the comment. It's a completely unfair attack. And I asked you why a comment from 30 years ago is more important than allowing the status quo of military intervention and it's all too predictable terrorist attack consequences

[Woodruff]

Alternatively you could also work at building a transparent government you can trust...

It's called the Tea Party.

Yes, you can trust the Tea Party...to do away with the rights of homosexuals and the ability to have an abortion.