Are you serious? We have a Presidential Candidate who holds almost all Slashdot's views to a T, and you don't give him the time of day except to link to a Democrat's blog that misinterprets one of his statements.
If you want corporate America out of power, you should've supported him more. He's the epitome of not being funded by corporations.
Geez, as one person said, "Only on Slashdot..."
For example, how exactly is he going to move a $7 trillion economy back to the gold standard when there's less than $3 trillion in gold on the planet?
Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard," (video) but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove sales taxes on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies (transcript) can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money. (video)
I don't know if you've ever worked at a newspaper or not, but the Editor doesn't always read everything that goes across his/her desk. In fact, there are many articles they don't read. Why? Because there are other editors working there. Now, I've never released newsletters every week but it reasons to warrant that it operates the same way.
As a note, his newsletters started circulating at least since 1978. The racist and controversial comments don't start being published until around 1986. That's almost 10 years. Ten years his newsletter had been operating. I guess you could call him lazy. But then again, he was operating a private practice and working in Congress at the time. Do you really think that's lazy? I think he simply placed too much trust in people to hold his same viewpoints in every aspect, and you can't blame him if nothing controversial had popped up from their editing for years.
Do some research into the guy and the newsletter issue before calling him a racist or lazy and irresponsible. It has nothing to with either.
If it is, it's a bad idea. One big reason is we don't know the number of people who only read their RSS feed and go "See? Even Slashdot things Ron Paul is not a serious candidate."
Regardless of whether you like his ideas or not, it's censorship when you needlessly go romping around omitting people from debates because they're not "mainstream" enough. That's an awesome idea. Let's only elect celebrities who have money and fame from now on.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you serious? We have a Presidential Candidate who holds almost all Slashdot's views to a T, and you don't give him the time of day except to link to a Democrat's blog that misinterprets one of his statements. If you want corporate America out of power, you should've supported him more. He's the epitome of not being funded by corporations. Geez, as one person said, "Only on Slashdot..."
Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard," (video) but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove sales taxes on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies (transcript) can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money. (video)
I don't know if you've ever worked at a newspaper or not, but the Editor doesn't always read everything that goes across his/her desk. In fact, there are many articles they don't read. Why? Because there are other editors working there. Now, I've never released newsletters every week but it reasons to warrant that it operates the same way. As a note, his newsletters started circulating at least since 1978. The racist and controversial comments don't start being published until around 1986. That's almost 10 years. Ten years his newsletter had been operating. I guess you could call him lazy. But then again, he was operating a private practice and working in Congress at the time. Do you really think that's lazy? I think he simply placed too much trust in people to hold his same viewpoints in every aspect, and you can't blame him if nothing controversial had popped up from their editing for years. Do some research into the guy and the newsletter issue before calling him a racist or lazy and irresponsible. It has nothing to with either.
If it is, it's a bad idea. One big reason is we don't know the number of people who only read their RSS feed and go "See? Even Slashdot things Ron Paul is not a serious candidate." Regardless of whether you like his ideas or not, it's censorship when you needlessly go romping around omitting people from debates because they're not "mainstream" enough. That's an awesome idea. Let's only elect celebrities who have money and fame from now on.