”Jesus H. Christ”….the sale of a customs house in Galveston, Texas!

Yep. All talk, no action. It's the Libertarian way.

”Jesus H. Christ”….the sale of a customs house in Galveston, Texas!

Yep. All talk, no action. It's the Libertarian way.

     Nah, c'mon man, it’s not a trick question.

     Think about it ...

     Okay….you give up?

Just let him talk …

Their primary concern is kissing the asses of Black Lives Matter activists.

Here are a few of Ron Paul's positions. Out of curiosity which to you support or disagree with? It is a broad spectrum of his positions from the on the issues site.

It's an interesting question, so I decided to go ahead and answer. I rearranged the issues by the date Paul promulgated the thought, because I think that as the situation in the world evolves, policy positions must evolve to address that. It's the events of the world, after all, that drive policy decisions. Example: Nobody in his right mind would agree to the levels of military expenditure we made in World War II in the decade before the war, and nobody in his right mind would refuse to make those expenditures during the war in order to win it.

Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999) DISAGREE. WE NEED TO MOVE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF USERS TO TREATING THEIR ADDICTIONS AS A MEDICAL ISSUE. AND WE DON'T WANT THE EXPENSE OF HAVING THEM TURN INTO AIDS PATIENTS.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) DISAGREE. THE MORE BOOTS WE GET ON THE BORDER, THE MORE WE CONTROL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND THOSE OTHER THINGS.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001) DISAGREE. PRAYER SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN SCHOOL. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) DISAGREE. SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" IS NOT MARRIAGE.

Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006) AGREE. WE NEED TO EXPAND ENERGY PRODUCTION.

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006) DISAGREE - IF THE STATE IS GOING TO BE BE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE AT ALL, GIVEN THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, MARRIAGE NEEDS TO BE DEFINED FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES. GIVEN THAT MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONTROVERSIAL TO SO DEFINE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007) AGREE - ABORTION IS PREMEDITATED MURDER.

Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007) AGREE - IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADULT PORNOGRAPHY, IT SHOULD ALL BE LEGAL AS LONG AS IT'S CONSENSUAL, GIVEN FREE SPEECH. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING.

Federal Reserve creates money and prints it out of thin air. (Jan 2008) AGREE - THAT'S WHAT IT DOES. DON'T AGREE THAT, THEREFORE, IT'S NOT MONEY.

Give tax breaks for start-up farms for 10-year commitment. (Jan 2008) DISAGREE - I OPPOSE SPECIAL TAX BREAKS FOR ANYBODY. WE SHOULD HAVE ONE TAX - A GROSS WEALTH TAX -THAT TAXES EVERYBODY's UNITARY WEALTH AT ONE UNITARY RATE. NO EXCEPTIONS AND NO DEDUCTIONS - AND NO OTHER TAXES. THE COUNTRY IS NOT READY FOR THAT, SO GIVEN OUR PRESENT TAX CODE, I GENERALLY OPPOSE SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR ANYBODY.

Stimulus package means more printing & devaluing the dollar. (Feb 2008) THAT'S TRUE, BUT IN THE MIDST OF A COLLAPSE IT IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A DEPRESSION.

National ID card is part of fear-based government. (Feb 2008) DISAGREE. YOU NEED A PASSPORT OR PASSPORT CARD TO TRAVEL ABROAD. YOU NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO DRIVE. WE HAVE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN PROBLEM AND A VOTER FRAUD PROBLEM. A NATIONAL ID CARD MAKES IT EASY FOR EMPLOYERS AND POLL OFFICIALS TO CHECK THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON.

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) AGREE - ROE V WADE TOOK THE CONSTITUTION OFF ITS HINGES BY MAKING THE SUPREME COURT THE SUPREME LEGISLATURE. ALSO, AND MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S EVIL.

Wasteful government spending backed by both parties. (Apr 2008) AGREE. THIS IS OBVIOUS.

Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008) DISAGREE - IN AN INCIPIENT DEPRESSION, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN PRIME THE PUMP. WE LEARNED THIS IN 1929-1933.

Voted NO on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009) DISAGREE - WHEN EVERYTHING FALLS APART, AS IT DID, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO STEP IN TO PREVENT A DEPRESSION.

Voted NO on $40B for green public schools. (May 2009) AGREE - "GREEN" MEANS "BOONDOGGLE". SPEND THE MONEY ON BETTER TEACHING.

Auto company nationalization is fascism. (Sep 2010) OH BULLSHIT. YOU CAN'T LET THE AUTO INDUSTRY DIE AND PUT THE WHOLE CITY OF DETROIT ON WELFARE. A THIRD OF IT ALREADY IS. SHALL WE JUST PERMANENTLY SUPPORT THE WHOLE THING. YOU HAVE TO SAVE MAJOR INDUSTRIES.

Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) DISAGREE. THIS IS NONSENSE WITH NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Drug War allows drug lords to make a lot more money. (Apr 2011) AGREE. DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS THOUGH.

Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) AGREE.

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011) AGREE.

Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) AGREE.

We spend $1.5T on wars; start by cutting there. (Sep 2011) AGREE.

Country is bankrupt & we can't keep spending. (Aug 2011) DISAGREE. THE COUNTRY IS NOT BANKRUPT. THAT IS FALSE. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING BANKRUPT. WE MUST KEEP SPENDING. WE HAVE TO BE JUDICIOUS ABOUT WHAT WE SPEND ON.

Student loan program is a total failure and unconstitutional. (Nov 2011) DISAGREE - IT HAS SUCCESSFULLY EDUCATED TENS OF MILLIONS, AND IT IS COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be auctioned off. (Jan 2012) DISAGREE - THE TREASURY SHOULD HAVE A HOME-LENDING BANK THAT LENDS DIRECTLY TO AMERICANS, ON A NOT-FOR-PROFIT BASIS, WITH NO MIDDLEMEN, AT 0 INTEREST, FOR EACH AMERICAN'S PRIMARY HOUSING. THE LOANS SHOULD BE REPAYABLE OVER A LIFETIME, WITH REPAYMENTS BASED ON INCOME, AND COLLECTIONS ENFORCED BY THE IRS.

Blacks disproportionately imprisoned for victimless crimes. (Jan 2012) PARTIALLY AGREE - BLACKS ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPRISONED, BUT THERE ARE NO "VICTIMLESS CRIMES".

Develop energy independence; no crony handouts like Solyndra. (Jan 2012) AGREE.

Eliminate the ineffective EPA. (Feb 2012) DISAGREE. REFORM IT TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE. BEFORE THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT, YOU COULD NOT SWIM IN LAKE ERIE OR THE DETROIT RIVER, AND THE AIR IN MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTRY STANK. THERE WERE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE IN THE SWAMPS AND ON ABANDONED LOTS EVERYWHERE. LOVE CANAL WAS KILLING THE PEOPLE AROUND IT.

SINCE THEN, THINGS HAVE IMPROVED GREATLY. YOU CAN EAT THE FISH OUT OF LAKE ERIE NOW. THE LAWS WERE EFFECTIVE, AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE EPA AND ITS PREDECESSOR ENFORCED THEM. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS PREVENT THE EPA FROM EXPANDING ITS POWER BEYOND THAT WHICH IS APPROPRIATE, AND KNOCK OFF THE GLOBAL WARMING FANTASY.

There, that's my list of agreements and disagreements with Paul, based on your list. Nothing on that list would knock him out of getting my vote. He is pro-life, so he passes the basic litmus test.

Some of what he believes is off, and some of it is silly. But he's not a bad guy. He's a reasonably reliable back-bencher.

An unstated premise that No True Libertarian could also be against abortion because restricting abortion is taking away a woman’s liberty to make a choice.

To find evidence of this, look no further than Reason, a libertarian monthly print magazine, where that tendency has been even more pronounced….considering the magazine's editorial staff overwhelmingly favoring a right to legal abortion.

I always laugh at the statists here who believe that the accomplishment of a politician is measured by the number of laws he sponsors and gets passed. Oh, and RP didn't take his lifetime guaranteed pension, nor did he go to work as a lobbyist like so many retired congresscritters do.

hondo is correct - the Libertarian party is NOT libertarian.

Ron Paul: An American Hero

Ron Paul’s legacy should not be measured by the number of his bills passed by Congress. His main objective was never to get his bills signed into law. There are no federal buildings or highways named after Ron Paul. “Thank goodness,” he says; he never wanted that.

Ron Paul’s accomplishments should instead be measured by the number of hearts and minds that he has changed. Throughout Ron Paul’s entire congressional career, spreading the message of liberty has always been his first and foremost priority. He ran for president three times to bring more attention to our continual loss of liberty in this country. And for that message, we all owe him a great debt of thanks.

Dr. Paul said in his farewell address that, “political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people.” Unlike many politicians, Ron Paul didn’t seek political office for personal gain, power, or money. He entered politics to raise awareness to the serious problems that this country faced right after Nixon took us off the quasi-gold standard.

Ron Paul’s legacy will live on in the minds of millions of people across the world that are motivated by his message. A popular grassroots sign at Ron Paul rallies reads: “Dr. Paul Cured My Apathy.” There are countless numbers of once politically apathetic young people, like me, that literally had their lives changed because of Ron Paul’s message. Once we heard Ron Paul speak about the dire state of our nation, we felt obligated to educate ourselves, get politically involved, and spread the message of liberty and peace.

Many of us admire Ron Paul because of his principled stance on the issues. Unlike most politicians, he does not flip flop based on political whims. That’s a true rarity in Washington. He stays true to what he believes in, no matter what.

The statists here hate any politician who has principles and sticks to them.

...his approach to lawmaking is particularly suited to not getting things done.

You fools think that "passing new laws" is a sign of accomplishment.

Which is why you are laughingly derided as statists.

     Deckard’s boring Libertarian Derangement Syndrome copy and paste meme/article.

Webmaster – Please reserve space.

Out of curiosity which to you support or disagree with? Support All and disagree with None.

I agree with most but not all.

You fools think that "passing new laws" is a sign of accomplishment.

You are afraid to admit you agree with most of his positions. That is my opinion.

Because his bills didn't pass doesn't mean anything is wrong with his positins. It just means that most of the others didn't agree.

Now we all know the country has been gong in the wrong direction. If you agree with that then you can't blame Ron Paul for the condition of the country. He tried but he was outnumbered.

If his bills would have passed would it have made the country a better place. For the most part for sure.

Later when I have more time I will post a bunch of his positions that I disagree with.

Ron Paul is an honorable man.

Great list - thanks for posting it.

Ij ust chose some from the list. Picked some from each category. I put some in i agree with and some I don't. I left some out I didn't agree with.

www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

You fools think that "passing new laws" is a sign of accomplishment.

Other than collect a salary, what is it that you think lawamakers should do?

I suppose you could include repealing laws, but he failed at that too.

That is one thing I like about you. You do go in detail about why you believe as you do.

Have a good day.

Other than collect a salary, what is it that you think lawamakers should do?

I suppose you could include repealing laws, but he failed at that too.

Because assholes like you outnumber him is the reason he didn't get as much accomplished as he did had we had more honorable people in congress.

I doubt you can man up because you are so childish. But if you have it in you and you have the balls to answer (very doubtful because your friends will make fun of you) please tell us what you agree with or what you disagree with on my little list.

Or don't if you are a pussy.

He supports faggots... and like most libtards, feels it's Whitey's fault that 25% of our populace (blacks) make up 70% of our prison populace.... couple that with his heroin vending machines at school lunch rooms and he's a big fat Jane Fonda in a creepy old man skin suit.

I don't like fags. But we should all be equal under the law. That doesn't mean fag pretend marriage.

I don't think he is actually for them. He has a mixed record on the issue. I disagree with some of his votes that concerned homos. But I don't disagree with all of them.

If we get to the root of WHY he voted the way he did we might understand why better and come to the conclusion that he isn't pro sodomite. Maybe not.

I don't agree with some of his drug positions. But you are exaggerating with heroin vending machines.

He has to many views that are different then Fondas.

You have a good day too.

Libertarian Derangement Syndrome

It would appear that you suffer greatly from this affliction.

Maybe a better word to describe you would be "libertyphobe".

his (Ron Paul) heroin vending machines at school lunch rooms

Post the link or crawl back in your hole.

I don't like fags. But we should all be equal under the law. That doesn't mean fag pretend marriage.

We're not far apart. We should all be equal under the law. And that does not mean that gays can marry, because that is not marriage at all.

I suppose where we would differ is that you don't like gays, while I am almost completely indifferent and generally find them pathetic, the sad and attainted dead-ends of their genetic lines.

My view is that they should not be suppressed, or oppressed, just simply ignored. And pitied.

You fools think that "passing new laws" is a sign of accomplishment.
Which is why you are laughingly derided as statists.

And thinking that is sign of accomplishment….is why you assholes are laughingly ridiculed as Paultards.

Ron Paul is an honorable man.

But, he is a most honorable man who has only talked, while he has accomplished nothing.

Talking is okay, but I want a leader who is not only a TALKER….but also a DOER, who makes things happen.

And that is why I wanted Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is a leader who does not “walk softly and carries a big stick” like Teddy; a leader who does not “talk softly and does nothing” like Ron….but, Donald Trump is a leader who “talks loudly and carries a big iPhone or iPad” while he accomplishes something to back up everything he says.

Now we all know the country has been gong in the wrong direction. If you agree with that then you can't blame Ron Paul for the condition of the country. He tried but he was outnumbered.

To paraphrase Brutus: I come to bury failures to accomplish….not to praise failures that did not accomplish.

If his bills would have passed would it have made the country a better place.

Do we want to live in a world of “if happenings” or live in a world of “reality with beneficial happenings?”

Some people look to the past and only dream about “if” things had happened….while others wake up and look to the future to find someone to make things happen.

We have now awakened and found Donald Trump….who will make things happen, happen for the best.

Let us therefore move on, and be thankful for that …

I'll read your long response later when I get home. Thanks taking the time to write a detailed response.

That is one thing I like about you. You do go in detail about why you believe as you do.

Have a good day.

Thanks, you too.

I call them as a see 'em. I'm not a politician, so I don't have a hidden agenda.

"I am what I am" - Popeye

But you are exaggerating with heroin vending machines.

Of course. I have to YELLA some of my examples to EVEN the YELLA playing field your agenda posters paint your site.

95% of Ron Paul's positions, I agree with. That 95% outweigh the 5% I don't agree with. So based on his political platform, knowing I will NEVER find a political candidate that I 100% agree with, I would vote for RP before I'd vote for 99% of the Republican past candidates. With that said, I'll never vote for him unless HE'S VIABLE.... AND it's to keep a (D) out of office because of the vile assholes that tarnish his name. Decktard, being a shining example of one.

Trust me when I say, Ron Paul's 6% popularity is a direct result of the TRASH (like Sucky Bucky, Hondope and Decktard) that's associated with his name. They just fail to get it... they FAIL to understand that it's because of the vile radical liberaltarian TRASH that Ron PAULTARD will DIE before he gets more than 3 laws passed or becomes POTUS

one
side

too
many
laws

but
a
good
herd
stampede

the
other
side

not
enough
laws

a
gentle
breeze
slide

the
edge
height
bottom
is
the
same

love
boris

ps

I'll
take
the
opposite
side

I
like
to
call
it
conservative
reality
safety

pss

even
a
two
year
old
should
be
able
to
understand
this

Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011)

Just churches? Not Kmart?

Craven bitch.

95% of Ron Paul's positions, I agree with. That 95% outweigh the 5% I don't agree with. So based on his political platform, knowing I will NEVER find a political candidate that I 100% agree with, I would vote for RP before I'd vote for 99% of the Republican past candidates. With that said, I'll never vote for him unless HE'S VIABLE.... AND it's to keep a (D) out of office because of the vile assholes that tarnish his name. Decktard, being a shining example of one.

I agree …

Trust me when I say, Ron Paul's [LOW] 6% popularity is a direct result of the TRASH (like Sucky Bucky, Hondope and Decktard) that's associated with his name. They just fail to get it... they FAIL to understand that it's because of the vile radical liberaltarian TRASH that Ron PAULTARD will DIE before he gets more than 3 laws passed or becomes POTUS

The actions by these Paultard assholes has done more to turn me off Libertarianism than — well, than anything.

My contacts with the libertarians on LP created a certain amount of contempt for their philosophies and that grew to be even greater contempt after they moved over to LF.

They all rely on the asinine assumption that….if they will only string together enough of their vague and repulsive rhetoric, then all of human history and what all rational people on earth wants can be completely ignored.

They live in their own misguided worlds …

The actions by these Paultard assholes has done more to turn me off Libertarianism than — well, than anything.

You could NEVER be a libertarian; both of you thrive on government handouts.

Just churches? Not Kmart?

Craven bitch.

Churches.

Why are you to cowardly to answer a simple straight forward question?

I'm where you are for the most part.

If I get time I'll come back and tell you where I disagree with you and why.

One real quick would be gold for currency. The constitution does say that. Also in the Bible god says he likes true weights and measures. Paper money is manipulated money.

Churches.

Why is that, dullard? Because your man-crush said so?

No more Justices of the Peace?

No more marriages by ship's captains?

No more marriages by judges?

No more marriages by court clerks?

Who decides what a church is for purposes of conducting marriages?

And why not Kmart?

Stupid parrot.

Hmm pussyboy?

I'm answering one of your moronic proposals. You're pissing yourself and running away from it.

It was Ron Pauls proposal not mine.

I agree that churches should be able to issue marriage licenses without the governments permission.

I agree that churches should be able to issue marriage licenses without the governments permission.

So do I... and they shouldn't be forced to wed faggots in the name of treating people equal. We ain't all equal... we never were.

college
degrees

take
the
oath
of
office

on
comic
books

the
libertarian
bible
manistfesto

love
boris

So do I... and they shouldn't be forced to wed faggots in the name of treating people equal. We ain't all equal... we never were.

I'll go even further. If some homos want to go to the store and get some crayons and make their own license. I don't care. Just when the interfere in the public sphere and try to force acceptance of a perversion.

college degrees

Expand please.

pilots

soldiers

sailors

seers

magicians

anthropologists

psychics

crystal
balls

chicken
entrails

tea
leaves

throw
dah
bones

make
it
all
up

april
fools

365 /
year

love
boris

ps

3rd
world
usa

live

ebonics

trees

bananas

brown
nosing

jail
sex

white
slavery

torture

bondage

One real quick would be gold for currency. The constitution does say that. Also in the Bible god says he likes true weights and measures. Paper money is manipulated money.

I think we often come up against the real seam in our respective ways of thinking and understanding that make it very hard sometimes, for us to "get" each other. Given the nature of it, I think it's harder for you to understand me than the reverse - I know what you're referring to in the Constitution and the Bible. I think that where you find what I have to say about such things distressing is that I often view some of the same things you see as authoritative, but not necessarily limitative.

In a religious sense, I'm not a Sola Scripturalist, but I have always been willing to do straight KJV-Only Sola Scriptura in Biblical discussions.

If we ever did that, we would see pretty quickly that our methods of addressing the same words are different. If we got angry at each other (and you do get angry at me sometimes) you would say that I am "Lying", and I would retort that you are "reading things into the text, adding outside concepts that are not there".

I think if we were calm about it and recognized that we are both men of good will trying to get at the truth, but see things from different - sincere - perspectives, it would be easier to put the points of tension and disagreement in clear perspective.

I actually think that the place to begin with all of it is the Bible, because ultimately my whole morality comes out of my beliefs about God, and I perceive that yours does to. We see God differently, in part because of denominational differences, but of course in this world we choose our denominations, so those chosen denominational differences are really the offshoot of the deeper structure of our respective minds.

One could say that I "think the way I do because I am a Catholic", or a lawyer, but it would be much more accurate to say that I am a Catholic, and a successful lawyer, because I think the way I do. The mind preceded the career choice, and steered it, and while I was baptized Catholic, I passed through three decades of being nothing more than a Christianized pagan before the Christian religion was concretely proven to me to my satisfaction, at which point I could have selected any denomination, but remained Catholic - not just externally anymore, but also largely internally.

I don't know that you are Baptist, but the way you think reminds me of my Baptist cousins and Baptist minister great uncle. There is a clarity of logic along clear lines, all of which flows for certain key foundational scriptures.

For you to discuss Catholicism with me objectively, or me to discuss those cornerstones of Baptisty Scripture with you objectively, would be difficult, because we are coming from a position of different weightings of things. It's easy to get steamed over them when the root of the other's view seems to come from a place that must not be questioned - from a place of evil.

The Apostles also fought with each other, sometimes quite bitterly. Christ sometimes mocked them (calling two of them "Sons of Thunder" for their goings on) and sometimes prayed to the Father for their unity, that they would be able to hold together in spite of the differences.

At the fundamental root, I believe that the broad direction of what I do is based on the will of God. And so do you. We look at what God said, and what he meant, differently.

I think the most productive thing we could do - if we don't want to fight like cats and dogs, is to really try to look at Christianity through the eyes of the other.

Do that until we can manage it, and I think that we will each realize that the other is not coming from a position of immoral compromise with evil, or setting aside God's word to satisfy a political desire, but that we really read the same words of the same God and think he meant something different.

As an example (using the Constitution, not the Bible)- I think you read Article 1, section 8 para 5 (granting Congress the power to coin money), and Article 1, Section 10, para 1 (denying the states the power to make anything other than gold or silver coin as legal tender for the payment of debts), as limiting the federal government to using only gold or silver as the basis for the money.

But I read those two clauses and do not see that. What I see is that Congress has the power to make money (it is not limited to gold and silver), but that states have no power to make money, other than gold or silver.

So, for example, the Congress has the authority to make the money we have - "fiat" money as goldbugs would say - and that is the legal tender of the whole realm. States do not have the right to make their own legal tender, but they could, in the day, use Spanish pieces of eight, or French louis, or British pounds sterling - gold and silver money - as the basis for paying debts.

I do not read the limitation on the states as a limitation on the federal government. My motive is not "to empower the federal government". It is because I am reading exactly what the text SAYS. The limitation is on the states, to prevent THEM from making money (but to permit them to use the gold and silver that was in circulation in that day). But there is no limitation in the text as to what the federal government has to make money out of.

So, a state with a debt to the feds back then COULD pay the feds in silver or gold coinage of foreign nations - it was valued based on the silver and gold - but the federal government was not bound to issue money made of gold and silver. It DID, mostly, but it also issued debts and paper money for the exigencies of war, in particular.

I by no means desire a fight over this, but that is what I read when I read those words. I don't see the limits on the federal government in them that the gold-bugs see. This is not because I am an agent of the Rothschild's. It's because I am strictly honest, and the words are just not there.

I don't suffer from a deficiency of logic - that's where the arguments start to get insulting: I must be an idiot because I don't read the words the way somebody else reads them.

Well, I'm not an idiot and I know it. And so does anybody who talks with me for any time. It am not playing a game when I say that the words aren't there. I really mean it: the words are not there, and I can't just pretend that they ARE there in order to get along.

I can PRETEND they are there, to go ahead to see what the implications are...and what those implications are is that there is no civil war (because the South could not have fought for a week on the gold standard - it had to rely entirely on printed money), but that the Germans would have won World War I and been the colonial masters of the world (because the United States, limited to a pure gold and silver standard, without fractional reserving, did not have one-one hundredth of the gold or silver necessary to fight that war.

Had the standard applied to the American Revolutionaries, we would be British subjects: the Revolution was won on Continental paper money and unbacked debt.

Since the 1600s war has been so expensive that no nation in the world has ever been able to fight it on the gold or silver standard. All have had to resort to unbacked debt and fractional reserving.

Just because it is not sustainable does not mean that the Constitution does not bind the federal government to a gold and silver standard. But it simply doesn't: the words are not there.

So when I look at things formalistically - playing Sola Scriptura with the US Constitution - or when I look at things consequentially - what would happen if we did - I find that the country would not have ever become independent in the first place had the Founders themselves not issued fiat currency, and I find that they did not write a document that actually bound themselves or their heirs, at the federal level, to do so. It DID bind the states of gold and silver, in order to remove a deficiency of the articles of Confederation, which allowed each state to issue its own money. That was not working well, so it was changed.

I understand the desire to fix our economic mess by a resort to gold. I am not personally opposed to getting our finances in such a shape that we could, in peacetime, be on the gold and silver standard (in wartime, it is absolutely impossible - the total gold and silver in the world is not one one millionth of the value necessary to fight World War II - to stick to that standard in modern war means to certainly lose the war - and there are things more important than economic stability).

But what I can't do is pretend that a document like the Constitution says what I can see it does not say. To me, that would be dishonest.

There is no bright line rule, in written word from the American past, that forces the result I would like to see. We actually do have to fight it out politically. We don't have the written words to be able to seize the Supreme Court and get the court to rule, based on original intent, that we go on a bi-metal standard, thereby bypassing the hard politics. The Constitution just doesn't say it.

All that the Scripture says is that when one has weights and measures, whether for gold or silver, or for measuring out grain and oil at the marketplace, they must be honest weights. To have dishonest weights is to cheat and steal one's counterparties. The Scriptures do not require men to operate their governments on the gold and silver standard.

This doesn't mean that I'm opposed to sound money! It means that I can't pretend that powerful documents give me divine authority and the authority of the Founding Fathers to demand a particular result that I prefer.

Now, if you were angry, you might very well look at those same texts and call me a "liar" because YOU see the gold and silver standard for money in them.

I could then turn and call you a "liar" because that mandatory standard is NOT there.

And back and forth we would go.

I wouldn't do it (call you a "liar") because I recognize that you really are sincere. You might (I don't know that this is the case with gold and silver) really see those words you're reading (in the Constitution, and about weights and measures in the Scripture) as really saying that. They don't, I know, but YOU know they do.

There's no dishonesty here. Neither is lying. We're just not seeing the same meaning in a set of words.

I don't think that can ever be worked out politically, but I think in a political sense it maybe could be IF we were to agree on a single Scriptural text (say, the KJV) and then read it in a Sola Scriptura manner, without admitting with Catholic tradition or Protestant tradition. Just the words themselves.

If we did that, I think we would still not see everything the same way. But I think that we WOULD really understand where, precisely, in a Biblical sense, the other was coming from. And we could plot out the places where we're bound to disagree, on a Scriptural basis, and know WHY we disagree, and recognize that our disagreement is rooted in completely sincere differences in our understandings of what God is actually saying to us there.

It might not really remove the points of disagreement, but I think it would certainly reduce the rancor when we disagree, because of the improved understanding.