News What are the economic impacts of government growth and corruption?

[CaptainQuasar]

I actually think Ron Paul is a little bit nutty, particularly he would have to be really, really careful to abolish the Federal Reserve without accidentally destroying the entire world economy in the process, but his analysis of Iraq is more dead-on exactly like mine than anyone I've ever heard speak about it, politician or otherwise, and it was absolutely awesome to have him on stage with the other Republican candidates. A big shout out to any Ron Paul supporters who helped him get there.

It glaringly highlighted the nature of the establishment (both Republican and Democrat, as he says.) There were some points there where they were all laughing at him, then he said something else and they all instantly put on their poker faces and refrained from responding to him because he had waved a third rail in their face. It was so dramatic that it really seemed to me as if they were uncomfortably afraid. Go Ron.

 

[DrClapeyron]

What if Ron Paul had to speak to a foreign head of state? I can't see it happening. He is a very insular man who can make the most out of what he is given but he is not giving himself much to work with. When your appeal stops at 25 year old, xbox playing, 7th year seniors. He is dogging it but I believe he perfectly well understands.

He doesn't sit well with the the entitlement crowd. I don't know his position on social security but would someone mind an abbreviated version of Ron Paul's social security reform plan?

 

[DeadWolfe]

Evo, it's not fair to say that he's a nut, nor that his followers are. They value different things than you, and have different ideals, but he is perfectly rational. All his ideas are set forth in a sensible way to make the nation more like the way he wants it to be.

Don't call somebody a nut unless they are really irrational, that is, they make invalid logical deductions. (Like, for instance, believing that Obama will bring about "change" just because he said so, despite having taken no real hard line stances against any *particular* significant aspects of the establishment).

 

[falc39]

What if Ron Paul had to speak to a foreign head of state? I can't see it happening. He is a very insular man who can make the most out of what he is given but he is not giving himself much to work with. When your appeal stops at 25 year old, xbox playing, 7th year seniors. He is dogging it but I believe he perfectly well understands.

He doesn't sit well with the the entitlement crowd. I don't know his position on social security but would someone mind an abbreviated version of Ron Paul's social security reform plan?

I'm going to have to keep this brief, but the gist of it is to cut lots of spending. By not continuing the war and bring our troops home from all over the world (korea, taiwan, germany, etc), it will greatly relieve our budget. He also states that he will cut or shrink many questionable departments. This includes, the department of homeland security, education, energy, etc. His plan is to free up enough money so we can keep people who our bound to social security in it, while allowing younger people to opt out, eventually phasing out ss. It's a tough pill to swallow but it's not like other candidates are offering better solutions. Social security is one colossal ponzi scam and sometimes this may be the only way to end it.

 

[falc39]

What has continually surprised me is the diversity of his supporters. It's not just young people.

It's generally accepted and well known that he gets a lot of the young supporters (obama too).

But then he also gets the most support/donations from active and retired military personnel (out of all of the candidates!).


He also gets the most international support, which is something no one expected either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07TVBLFroSM"
http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRNbZiI78uQ"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1MT4iuJ0M&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_TJrqHmcjE"

Not only that, he's also popular in some financial circles too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cml7JLfGxkY&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE"

 

[ShawnD]

It's easy to misunderstand Paul. For instance, in 2002, he proposed a bill to allow Congress to declare war on Iraq (months before Bush did it). Someone reading that will likely get the impression that Paul supprts the Iraq war. Quite the contrary. Paul opposes the Iraq war, but also wants any war resolution to have to be passed by Congress (not just endorsed by them), which is why he proposed the bill. He said at the time that he would himself have voted against his bill, but at least it would be Congress that makes the decision.

It's stuff like this that makes me really like Paul. The current administration is pulling that "ends justifies the means" crap where they start illegal wars (never passed by congress) in order to do something. Paul tried to put it through the legal process of having congress vote on it, and it didn't happen, so it was essentially decided that an illegal war is better than a legal war. That makes perfect sense... maybe the government should illegally do everything then. Illegal searches are probably better than legal searches, illegal imprisonment is better than legal imprisonment, etc.

edit

Heck, can you guys even explain in practical terms how his environmental policy could be implimented? Is it even a policy or just an unique and possibly intelligent sounding idea?

He doesn't have an environmental policy. He'll claim he does, but he really doesn't.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Uh, I just found something allegedly about Ron Paul that looks really disturbing. Can anyone explain this as being false somehow?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Uh, I just found something allegedly about Ron Paul that looks really disturbing. Can anyone explain this as being false somehow?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

What's scary about that?

If you want to know what the man thinks, then watch and listen to him in the full context of his message.

I have already provided several credible sources, and here's another one: His appearance on This Week. In spite of those who try to use scare tactics to discredit a true patriot, Paul is no nut - at least no more so than the founding fathers. He is radical, he is controversial, he is a revolutionary, but he is no nut. He is a man of principle who tells the truth no matter whose toes get stepped on. It's no wonder he receives so much derision!


It was very noticable last night in the NH Rep debate that the other candidates were rolling their eyes when Paul made several key points. It was also obvious why: They couldn't even begin to keep up! He is about ten steps ahead of the rest, and that's why many people don't understand his message. But the young people do because they are willing to listen and understand.

At the 1:00 mark in the interview with Stephanopoulos, he nails it. That is why Ron Paul is a phenomenon - Liberty!

 

[falc39]

Uh, I just found something allegedly about Ron Paul that looks really disturbing. Can anyone explain this as being false somehow?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

The seemingly racist quotes were debunked already, about 10 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy"

Here is his real views of racism:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”

 

[DrClapeyron]

All his ideas are set forth in a sensible way to make the nation more like the way he wants it to be.

Sounds like he is a fascist, like Musolini or Hitler.

 

[DeadWolfe]

No, sounds like anybody running for office.

 

[DrClapeyron]

No, sounds like anybody running for office.

Then why vote for someone that sounds like anybody else running for office? I'd rather chose someone who is unique in their stance to help America.

 

[binzing]

Check out the latest issue (dec.) of outside magazine. It has a section on all of the main candidates and how "green" they are. Guess what party the three no-shows were from?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The seemingly racist quotes were debunked already, about 10 years ago.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Those quotes aren't "seemingly" racist, they are very actually racist. The thing you linked to doesn't say that they aren't racist statements, it claims that they were made by someone other than Ron Paul who Ron Paul had authorized to speak for him, but that the person went and made statements Ron Paul deeply disagreed with, but they got published in the Ron Paul Survival Report anyways.

It seems pretty dodgy to claim that things he repeatedly published in the Ron Paul Survival Report aren't his real views, his real views are what he's been saying on campaign trails, and any apparent conflict is insubstantial. I also read elsewhere on the net that the full text of only a few issues of Ron Paul Survival Report is available online and that although he still has copies of all the issues he's refusing to release them. If that's true this is very slimy and not very open or full-disclosure at all, it's practically spin doctoring through censorship.

And along those spin-doctoreque lines by the way, your use of the term "debunked" here is pretty deceptively pejorative, as if we're talking about a rumor instead of something that was published in Ron Paul's name with his authorization. The best light this can be put in is that he repeatedly signed off on something that was published in his name without really reading it, or that he allows his name to be placed on things he has no involvement whatsoever in. Either of those charges look rather incompetent for a member of Congress and a presidential candidate and that's after accepting his dodging misdirection in answering the issue, much less considering that he may very well actually hold racist and misogynist views (allowing that stuff to be published even if he really believes it would still be incompetent.)

 

[falc39]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Those quotes aren't "seemingly" racist, they are very actually racist. The thing you linked to doesn't say that they aren't racist statements, it claims that they were made by someone other than Ron Paul who Ron Paul had authorized to speak for him, but that the person went and made statements Ron Paul deeply disagreed with, but they got published in the Ron Paul Survival Report anyways.

It seems pretty dodgy to claim that things he repeatedly published in the Ron Paul Survival Report aren't his real views, his real views are what he's been saying on campaign trails, and any apparent conflict is insubstantial. I also read elsewhere on the net that the full text of only a few issues of Ron Paul Survival Report is available online and that although he still has copies of all the issues he's refusing to release them. If that's true this is very slimy and not very open or full-disclosure at all, it's practically spin doctoring through censorship.

And along those spin-doctoreque lines by the way, your use of the term "debunked" here is pretty deceptively pejorative, as if we're talking about a rumor instead of something that was published in Ron Paul's name with his authorization. The best light this can be put in is that he repeatedly signed off on something that was published in his name without really reading it, or that he allows his name to be placed on things he has no involvement whatsoever in. Either of those charges look rather incompetent for a member of Congress and a presidential candidate and that's after accepting his dodging misdirection in answering the issue, much less considering that he may very well actually hold racist and misogynist views (allowing that stuff to be published even if he really believes it would still be incompetent.)

This has been brought up time and time again, I think there are many other supporters who can argue for him better than I do. http://donklephant.com/2007/08/27/ron-paul-realism-question-6-of-7/"

I also believe even the NY Times absolved him of the issue saying something that it was completely out of style and character. I also remember reading that the guy who did write it got fired immediately. Anyway, this thing has been debated over and over and if you haven't been convinced yet, I urge you to look at the rest of his writings/speeches (the other 99.9%) and judge for yourself if Ron Paul really could've wrote such a thing.

 

[Moridin]

He claims they where written by ghost writers.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This has been brought up time and time again, I think there are many other supporters who can argue for him better than I do. http://donklephant.com/2007/08/27/ron-paul-realism-question-6-of-7/"

I also believe even the NY Times absolved him of the issue saying something that it was completely out of style and character. I also remember reading that the guy who did write it got fired immediately. Anyway, this thing has been debated over and over and if you haven't been convinced yet, I urge you to look at the rest of his writings/speeches (the other 99.9%) and judge for yourself if Ron Paul really could've wrote such a thing.

The guy who wrote those ten different quotes in seven different issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide got fired immediately? That's an oxymoron.

I would be more interested in judging Ron Paul by the rest of his writings and speeches if I hadn't heard that he's withholding some of his writings because he purportedly thinks that I can't be trusted to reasonably interpret them. (These unavailable issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide are what I'm talking about.)

He claims they where written by ghost writers.

"Someone authorized to speak for Ron Paul" is an accurate description of "Ron Paul's ghost writer".

 

[falc39]

The guy who wrote those ten different quotes in seven different issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide got fired immediately? That's an oxymoron.

I would be more interested in judging Ron Paul by the rest of his writings and speeches if I hadn't heard that he's withholding some of his writings because he purportedly thinks that I can't be trusted to reasonably interpret them. (These unavailable issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide are what I'm talking about.)

"Someone authorized to speak for Ron Paul" is an accurate description of "Ron Paul's ghost writer".

There is nothing I can say anymore to argue with this... It's nothing new under the sun, it's been debated by people over and over, I've read it on many forums. Ron Paul has explained what happened. If you don't think that is a good explanation, then you think he's a liar, which is fine, but that doesn't prove the other side of the argument either. It's still speculation. To me, those quotes are way out of character for him. It goes against 99% of everything else he says, so I believe his explanation, and that is the best judgment I can make.

 

[Manchot]

I respect some of Paul's views, but like others, I find him too nutty. For me, what does him in is his position on antitrust law. I don't know what universe he lives in, but I would say that multinational corporations exerting undue influence on the marketplace falls under the umbrella of "interstate commerce." More generally, he's a corporatist in constitutionalist's clothing. He doesn't understand that corporations do not have the right to exist, and that they are supposed to serve some sort of public good in exchange for the legal benefits. If he had is way, in twenty years we'd all be slaves to a company which owns everything, and which you cannot speak out against lest they stop selling you food.

 

[Mk]

It was very noticable last night in the NH Rep debate that the other candidates were rolling their eyes when Paul made several key points. It was also obvious why: They couldn't even begin to keep up! He is about ten steps ahead of the rest, and that's why many people don't understand his mess

They had to make fun of his statements. Go ad hominem when you don't have arguments to back yourself up! Actually, they probably do have arguments, they just haven't memorized them yet. Ron Paul was the only one up there that said ANYTHING different from the rest of the candidates.

From CaptainQuasar's link, the Ron Paul quote I might most agree with is this one:
"There is no such thing as a hate crime, only crimes against person and property."

 

[Manchot]

Well, speak of the devil. I just saw a segment on Tucker with James Kirchick of The New Republic, and they're going to be releasing an article in a couple days about Ron Paul's racism. They managed to get their hands on some more of the withheld Ron Paul Report newsletters, spanning over twenty years. Among other things, he called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile" and spoke at a white supremacist conference in 1995. Kirchick makes the point that the new quotes span twenty years, meaning that even if they were ghost written as he claimed, it would've been impossible for him not to have noticed in the entire span.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

There is nothing I can say anymore to argue with this... It's nothing new under the sun, it's been debated by people over and over, I've read it on many forums. Ron Paul has explained what happened. If you don't think that is a good explanation, then you think he's a liar, which is fine, but that doesn't prove the other side of the argument either. It's still speculation. To me, those quotes are way out of character for him. It goes against 99% of everything else he says, so I believe his explanation, and that is the best judgment I can make.

Do you also believe his explanation that we the public just can't be trusted to properly interpret the other issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide? Forgive me for not wanting to leave that up to him.

I didn't say anything about him being a liar. I said that he's been dodgy and that if the ghost writer story is true - if what he said is true - it shows incompetent behavior. Respond to what I'm saying, don't put words in my mouth. If you've seen this debated so many times you ought to have some good responses to what I'm actually saying instead of setting up and knocking down straw men.

 

[russ_watters]

You underestimate the supporters' reasoning. There are many factors why people support Ron Paul. One big factor is the intangibles, specifically referring to integrity, honesty, etc. You have to realize some people are so sick of dishonesty and corruption in politics.

I'm all for that type of logic. I think people ignore it too often. Nevertheless, actual policy matters as well. Most of what Ron Paul suggests isn't even theoretically possible, much less actually doable, but some things he wants to do he might be able to get through and that makes him very dangerous. And to me that means his supporters are not thinking clearly.

I asked before if anyone could explain exactly how in reality his environmental policy would work, but no one responded. So here's how I envision it:

Lets say for example he gets a Republican Congress that backs him in his vision. First thing they do for him is get rid of the EPA, the consumer product safety commission, the clean air act, all alternate energy funding, and a few other major impediments to businesses doing whatever the hell they want. Immediately, the country ditches all forms of clean energy, people pull the catalytic converters off their cars, and 100 new coal power plants are built. Now Ron Paul wants "market forces" and the Constitution in raw form to deal with the issue of pollution via lawsuits on Constitutional grounds. That'll make the lawyers happy - they respond to the situation by immediately suing essentially everyone in the country for everything from smoking in public to driving a car (doesn't matter what kind of car or how efficient it is - they all pollute), not to mention any product that has ever killed or injured anyone. The country will need a few hundred million more lawyers and 10x the exsiting court system, but eventually with no real economy behind it, the country will just collapse.

Next up - how I envision his tax system would work if he were able to implement it...

 

[russ_watters]

More generally, he's a corporatist in constitutionalist's clothing.

I disagree with you on most things (including your next sentence), but I think there is a good possibility you are right about this. I don't think any sane person would believe you could get rid of most/all corporate restrictions without sending us back to the 1800s era of sweat shops, monopolies, massive city-wide fires, lead paint, etc. The judicial branch is not designed to deal with that kind of thing on its own. I'd even go so far as to say that if he's serious then he simply doesn't understand how the Consitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances. It is very odd for a Congressman to take the position that the legislative branch is essentially pointless.

 

[russ_watters]

It's stuff like this that makes me really like Paul...

He doesn't have an environmental policy. He'll claim he does, but he really doesn't.

I find it hard to reconcile statements like this.

 

[Cyrus]

I like Ron Paul becaue he says what he wants to say. I think his policy would be devistating and ruin the country and would never work (Hed be impeached first).

But I like how he says what everyone is thinking, but does not have the stones to say. He seems like the most down to Earth person you would meet on the street and has a gripe about government than anyone else you see running.

 

[falc39]

I'm all for that type of logic. I think people ignore it too often. Nevertheless, actual policy matters as well. Most of what Ron Paul suggests isn't even theoretically possible, much less actually doable, but some things he wants to do he might be able to get through and that makes him very dangerous. And to me that means his supporters are not thinking clearly.

I asked before if anyone could explain exactly how in reality his environmental policy would work, but no one responded. So here's how I envision it:

Lets say for example he gets a Republican Congress that backs him in his vision. First thing they do for him is get rid of the EPA, the consumer product safety commission, the clean air act, all alternate energy funding, and a few other major impediments to businesses doing whatever the hell they want. Immediately, the country ditches all forms of clean energy, people pull the catalytic converters off their cars, and 100 new coal power plants are built. Now Ron Paul wants "market forces" and the Constitution in raw form to deal with the issue of pollution via lawsuits on Constitutional grounds. That'll make the lawyers happy - they respond to the situation by immediately suing essentially everyone in the country for everything from smoking in public to driving a car (doesn't matter what kind of car or how efficient it is - they all pollute), not to mention any product that has ever killed or injured anyone. The country will need a few hundred million more lawyers and 10x the exsiting court system, but eventually with no real economy behind it, the country will just collapse.

Next up - how I envision his tax system would work if he were able to implement it...

I don't know though, can we assume that everyone would do this? Living in California, Our governor has done things to push the standard of the how the environment should be treated, separate from the federal government. I think Paul might allow states to decide such standards, I think he just wants the federal government out.

Do you also believe his explanation that we the public just can't be trusted to properly interpret the other issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide? Forgive me for not wanting to leave that up to him.

I didn't say anything about him being a liar. I said that he's been dodgy and that if the ghost writer story is true - if what he said is true - it shows incompetent behavior. Respond to what I'm saying, don't put words in my mouth. If you've seen this debated so many times you ought to have some good responses to what I'm actually saying instead of setting up and knocking down straw men.

That wasn't his explanation though. He has not given an explanation on why he withholds them. I'm not going to assume that the reason why he withholds them is because the public can't be trusted. Why would you re-distribute something you regret ever being distributed in the first place?

It does show incompetent or careless behavior. But he addressed the issue and took moral responsibility for it, which to me is the right behavior to address it with.

Tucker Carlson had a writer from New Republic who is rehashing the old newsletters (Ron Paul Financial Newsletter) where Ron Paul is alleged to have wrote racist remarks about blacks in the inner city of Washington, D.C. with a propensity for crime.

For the factual record however, Ron Paul has never been accused of saying a racist remark to anyone in his 20 years in Congress. There are no witnesses anywhere who have ever heard Ron Paul utter a remark that was racist in any way. He has never said a racist word in the Congressional Record nor has anyone ever recorded a racist remark from Dr. Paul.

No one in the Black Caucus in Congress has ever heard Ron Paul utter a racist remark.

For the words attributed to a 1992 newsletter, Ron Paul has apologized for these words that appeared in an issue of his newsletter, but he did not write them. He particularly regrets a remark made about Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who Ron Paul very much liked and admired. Ron Paul has never referred to Martin Luther King, Jr. in any disparaging way, and regards MLK, Jr. and Rosa Parks as heroes of his.

Ron Paul has delivered babies to black families, hispanic families, illegal immigrants, and all people. He even did so at no charge for poorer black, hispanic, white and illegal immigrants.

No black person has ever made the claim Dr. Paul was ever unkind or racist in any way, and this man has led a very public life from 1974 to 2008, 31 years!

If you have watched Dr. Paul, you know he has never adhered to any racist beliefs, actions, words or statements, and no one has ever heard him utter anything like a racist remark.

After 31 years, if no one can say they heard it, or videotaped it, or were victim of it, then it doesn't exist. The "racist" label cannot apply.

Not only is Dr. Paul no racist, but quite the contrary, he is truly the presidential candidate that cares most deeply about African-Americans, more so than any other candidate, without question.

Currently there are 600,000 African-Americans in US jails and prisons for crimes under the draconian drug laws, laws that Dr. Paul has always opposed, voted against and condemns today in his Presidential bid. Dr. Paul is well aware in his television speeches that African-Americans are being punished and targeted in the federal drug war.

Ron Paul is really someone who just speaks his mind, it's hard to argue that. Now assume he is racist. Considering that he is a person who is always speaking his mind, how could the above in quotes happen? That's how I make my final judgment, it just doesn't add up to his record.

 

[falc39]

I respect some of Paul's views, but like others, I find him too nutty. For me, what does him in is his position on antitrust law. I don't know what universe he lives in, but I would say that multinational corporations exerting undue influence on the marketplace falls under the umbrella of "interstate commerce." More generally, he's a corporatist in constitutionalist's clothing. He doesn't understand that corporations do not have the right to exist, and that they are supposed to serve some sort of public good in exchange for the legal benefits. If he had is way, in twenty years we'd all be slaves to a company which owns everything, and which you cannot speak out against lest they stop selling you food.

I disagree with you on most things (including your next sentence), but I think there is a good possibility you are right about this. I don't think any sane person would believe you could get rid of most/all corporate restrictions without sending us back to the 1800s era of sweat shops, monopolies, massive city-wide fires, lead paint, etc. The judicial branch is not designed to deal with that kind of thing on its own. I'd even go so far as to say that if he's serious then he simply doesn't understand how the Consitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances. It is very odd for a Congressman to take the position that the legislative branch is essentially pointless.

In economics, there is an opposing view on this subject. I'm probably going to read up on it in the future.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0945466250/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933995092/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945999623/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[falc39]

Hey all, for any who are interested here are some recent appearances Ron Paul has made:

NH Town Hall Forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxldrCsVByA"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VQcpmfT0f4&feature=user"

Jay Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzC5RxLB_zw"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-lL2Dz531Q"

 

[CaptainQuasar]

That wasn't his explanation though. He has not given an explanation on why he withholds them. I'm not going to assume that the reason why he withholds them is because the public can't be trusted. Why would you re-distribute something you regret ever being distributed in the first place?

I don't feel a need to make any definite statements about Ron Paul's motivation for concealing those things. But I don't think he should get a pass and be free of the suspicions and criticism any other politician (or almost any public figure) would be subjected to in this situation, just because he's such a great guy. This isn't something to dismiss as old news, this is ongoing concealment of his printed views.

It does show incompetent or careless behavior. But he addressed the issue and took moral responsibility for it, which to me is the right behavior to address it with.

I ask again - is concealing other material, which he supposedly has the same legitimate excuse for, taking moral responsibility and the right behavior?

Ron Paul is really someone who just speaks his mind, it's hard to argue that. Now assume he is racist. Considering that he is a person who is always speaking his mind, how could the above in quotes happen? That's how I make my final judgment, it just doesn't add up to his record.

I'll concede that some of the views he does not conceal are things that other politicians normally would conceal but what you're saying above is circular logic. He only really speaks his mind all the time if the stuff he's concealing and the stuff that was printed really doesn't reflect his views.

-

Now I'm arguing vehemently about this but I want to point out that these the unreleased issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report are effectively hearsay for me, though from someone I usually find trustworthy. As I mentioned it wasn't stated in the same article with the quotes I linked to, I read it elsewhere on the net. Maybe all the issues are available or maybe he's saying he doesn't have copies of them - I just ran with it because you others who were familiar with this didn't disagree with it. So feel free to investigate the substance of that charge if it doesn't ring true.