I don't really see what part of his stance is "cowardly". The basic idea is simply that the federal government doesn't need to be involved in defining marriage in any way at all. If at a state level, the people who live there feel strongly enough in one way or another that they want laws on the books in their state, then they're free to do so. Personally I don't think even the states need to define it, but again...any opportunity to reduce the ever-growing power of the wasteful, self-serving federal government is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Also, the 14th amendment speaks to the rights of an individual, but the legal recognition of a relationship between two people, for the sake of greater tax benefit or whatever else, becomes about more than the individual, so it's not really fair to cite the 14th amendment as being in support of defining marriagegay, straight, or in whatever other way someone wants to invent and call "marriage". I'm not aware of multiple proposed alternatives from Ron Paul in relation to the Federal Reserve; he wants a full audit of the Fed, which is completely necessary and reasonable, and he wants to repeal legal tender laws, which would open the door for other currencies to circulate. Realistically, there wouldn't be a need for a whole slew of competing currencies; likely just a few would arise on the free market that would meet the demands of the consumer. If anyone simply wanted to keep using Federal Reserve notes, they would be free to do so, but over time it would become obvious to even the most uninterested and simple-minded people that Federal Reserve notes suck as a stable store of wealth. It's the tidiest and most reasonable way that we can transition away from our current unfair and doomed monetary system, to a system where American citizens aren't continuously being robbed by the Fed's inflation. I understand why you would say that the two options for returning to a gold standard would be either huge deflationary measures or the entire world to take on the same system at the same time. It's reasonable to say the deflationary option is unrealistic, so what we're left with is the price of gold being fixed at a far higher US Dollar price than it is today (the "fair" price could best be decided by announcing Dollar-gold backing at a date in the near future, and allowing the market to find an equilibrium). I think it would probably be north of $5,000 an ounce, but there are compelling arguments out there for even higher figures. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to say that the rest of the world would have to take on the gold standard, though. If the supply of US Dollars were fixed to gold, then if other currencies were expanded by their central banks, their value would fall in Dollar terms. Shouldn't foreign policy, drug policy, and deficit spending alone should be reasons enough to never cast a vote for a mainstream candidate ever again? Also, which social programs are you talking about? Ron would rather start hacking at foreign aid and all militaristic expenditures overseas long before making little old ladies on fixed Social Security incomes start to suffer. There are minimally disruptive ways of transitioning away from social programs that can not be realistically funded in the future. You definitely used the word "love" I think it was on Nate Miller's Facebook post where we got into a discussion about inflation, and he deleted the whole thread the next day. I can't remember what the picture was that he posted, but it was some kind of anti-Obama graph. I might respond to the rest of this later, haha. Pretty tired right now.